METADEBATE!: Noam Chomsky vs. J.Kenyon

Sorry for my slow reply. I've been rather busy lately because it just so happens that all of my college applications are due other the course of the next week. I must say I take offense to my opponent's rude demeanor. It's all fun and games to insult people when they're not smart enough to know they're being made fun of, but I am hurt by his tone. For all his bombastic rhetoric and accusations of poor logic, my opponent is being a but hypocritical in this debate. For instance: "Famous people usually have extreme and incorrect opinions. They then argue these opinions by use of logical fallacies." Is making the generalization that famous people are usually wrong logical? I should think not. It is my opponent that seems to be harboring some more bizarre views: "Does Chomsky know facts or information? Not really." From this we are to assume that he is a better judge of Chomsky's knowledge than, for instance, the MIT faculty who hired him and gave him tenure? I think that Chomsky's extensive bibliography proves that he does indeed know something. I generally find it annoying when people make rebuttals through long sequences of quotes and replies, so I'm going to try to avoid that. However, I really can't believe how ridiculous some of my opponent's statements are. Normally I am used to inane nonsense, but my opponent is far too articulate for me to believe that he's making these mistakes because he's stupid. Does he seriously think that the US Highway System exists as a result of Native American trails built hundreds of years before, that Chomsky "has not clue that computers exist", or that Chomsky's quotes cannot be interpreted because they are not "of the Bible?" I think not. I think he is trying to persuade voters into accepting his position through presenting arguments he knows don't make sense as arrogantly and self-assuredly as possible. I feel like I am being either yelled or scoffed at when I read his argument, and yet it is entirely without substance. Using the phrase "logical fallacy" over and over again does not constitute a legitimate counterargument. Trying to discredit a renowned intellectual on the basis on one paragraph in which you believe he exaggerated one claim is not a recipe for success either. I am not going to derail this debate and turn it into an argument about the role of the government in the history of the Internet because it isn't necessary to do this in order to establish why Chomsky would be able to win a debate. If Chomsky were here to defend that claim himself, I am confident he would be able to for the reasons I have described above. To go back to my original arguments for a moment: 1. Experience Notice that in the counterargument, all my opponent did was attack televised debates and accuse more world renown intellectuals of being useless hacks. Are we honestly to believe that the only reason anyone listens to Christopher Hitchens, Michel Foucault, and Noam Chomsky is because they are entertaining? Hitchens is occasionally a bit entertaining, but for the most part intellectuals are boring and their "extreme" views don't make this any less true. People listen to public intellectuals because they have something valuable to say, whether or not you may agree with it. I also brought up that fact that Chomsky has been writing, debating, speaking, and generally making a living by doing things that are conducive to debate skills for about sixty years longer than Kenyon has. This is obviously a major advantage. 2. Knowledge Just calling views logical fallacies does not make them so. In any case, only two sentences of this rebuttal are actually spent talking about knowledge. "Does Chomsky know facts or information? Not really." No one seriously believes that an MIT professor does not know facts or information. I think it would have been very difficult for Chomsky to publish dozens of works without knowing anything. In reality-land, Chomsky's body of knowledge is far greater than that of what a twenty year old college student could reasonable be able to attain. I also mentioned that fact that Chomsky has far greater access to academic resources than Kenyon, a point which was dropped. These factors, again, provide Chomsky with a massive advantage. My opponent's style of debate has prompted me to make another point: 3. Rhetoric and Debate Style Chomsky is by no means a writer of great literature, but he is a strong writer. I realize that my opponent will mindlessly reject this claim and rant about Chomsky's inability to pass a spelling test, but I will make it anyway. Not only would it be virtually impossible for a linguist to lose the spelling and grammar vote, his style would also give him an advantage in impressing voters. Chomsky's writing combines the systematic and thorough logic of a scientist with the indignation of a moral activist. Anyone who has read Chomsky's work (with an open mind, and not merely for the purpose of disparaging it) will agree that even when you do not agree with Chomsky, he is very convincing. Chomsky has had a successful career precisely because he has been able to pull skeptics over to his side and convince people that he is right. It is not so that the denizens of DDO are too enlightened to be persuaded by him; Chomsky has done well specifically because he is able to convince logical and well educated people. If my opponent's pile of accusations of poor logic are true, they have not impeded Chomsky's ability to convince people that he is right. Another advantage that Chomsky has in this area is his superior ability to belittle his opponent, as seen in Freeman's video in the comments section. I suspect my opponent knows a thing or two about how that can make someone appear to have a better case than they really do. I would also like to make a few clarifications about things I said that my opponent has presented unfairly. When I said agreement was not a factor in scoring, I meant it literally. I agree that votebombing and general bias is an issue, but there are just as many liberals on this site as libertarians. Indeed, it seems to me that most of the votebombing is done by liberals and people in Kenyon's school of thought have pretty clean hands. Note the debate on free markets that RoyLatham is losing even though he clearly should be winning. Also, when I wrote of Chomsky's general philosophy I mentioned that fact that my opponent was not interpreting it correctly and was therefore making a strawman. Chomsky is not "the Bible" but there is a right and wrong way to understand what he means. I am not going to waste my time and effort outlining Chomsky's views when voters can read about them elsewhere if they find it important, because the exact details are irrelevant. Chomsky's views are not so absurd, as my opponent claims, to cost him the debate by default. Kenyon's views, in any case, are just as extreme compared to, say, the mainstream American public. I don't think he would deny that his position is also somewhat radical. There are a few remarks I would like to make in conclusion. First of all, my opponent has still made no positive case for Kenyon. Unlike with Chomsky, there is nothing about Kenyon that leads us to reasonably assume that he is a proficient debater. Furthermore, I had realized that because my opponent chose to disregard my stipulation that the debate would start in Round 2, he will have the first and last word. This is a rather rude mistake for someone who accuses me of not reading his rebuttals. I will have to ask that he not post an argument in Round 4 so that we will have an equal number of opportunities to argument. What my opponent has still amounts to little more than an angry rant. One paragraph and an overdose of sarcasm are not enough to prove, in spite of strong evidence to the contrary, that a world renowned intellectual cannot stand up to a college kid in a debate.