METADEBATE!: Noam Chomsky vs. J.Kenyon

I feel that my resolution is adequate: I am arguing that given a certain clearly defined situation, a certain outcome would occur. If my opponent would like additional clarification then he should specify and I will happily oblige. Constructive Case in Favor of Noam Chomsky: 1. Experience Chomsky is a far more experienced debater than Kenyon. He has debated against many brilliant and famous individuals, including Jean Piaget, Michel Foucault, William F. Buckley, and Christopher Hitchens. These debates were often on television, placing him under extreme pressure and forcing him to work off only his own knowledge and think on his feet quickly. If Chomsky can hold his own against the greatest intellectual titans of the 20th Century under these circumstances, he should have no trouble defeating a college student of above average intelligence with ample time to write and do research. Chomsky's 60 extra years of intellectual life in general would also give him no small advantage. In this area, Chomsky's advantage is overwhelming. 2. Knowledge Despite his claims to to contrary, Chomsky's knowledge is quite immense. His talks, interviews, and debates demonstrate that he has internalized a volume of knowledge that is beyond what most people are capable of. He has written numerous books on economic and political philosophy as well practical economic and political analysis of real events. Over the course of his years of doing this, he has surely learned much more about economics than Kenyon could possible have in his limited years of unfocused study. He has literally hundreds of sources at his fingertips that he has already used and can knows many of them from memory. Over the time span of a debate it would be virtually impossible to do enough research to match Chomsky's accumulated knowledge. Conclusion: Based on these two factors, it is highly likely that Chomsky would win the arguments and sources part of the vote, which comprises the majority of the points. It is extremely unlikely that the conduct and spelling and grammar sections would be awarded to either debater because both are courteous people and excellent writers. The sheer volume of Chomsky's knowledge and his outstanding proficiency and experience in delivering his arguments would make him extraordinarily difficult to beat in a debate. Chomsky is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, long time professor at MIT, winner of the Kyoto Prize, and he was voted the most important intellectual in the world in 2005. I state these credentials not because they are relevant to winning a debate, but because that say that it is with no exaggeration that I describe Chomsky's intellect and intelligence. Defense of Chomsky: My opponent's argument is against Chomsky's statements about economics and not his ability to debate. I assume (and he can correct me if I am mistaken) that we are supposed to draw from the argument that Chomsky's views are irrational the conclusion that if he argued for these views, he would be defeated. As far as this is concerned, I would like to make a few observations before proceeding: 1. Whether or not voters agree with the debaters is not a factor in the scoring. Making views that are generally not believed makes them much harder to defend, but not impossible. Kenyon himself showed that a skilled enough debater can win with even a ridiculous resolution (It is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists). Chomsky's advantage in skill is so overwhelming as to render the topic nearly irrelevant. 2. Wamba has not correctly interpreted Chomsky's philosophy. While this is not vital to the debate, I will explain it to some extent in order to avoid confusion. First off, the existence of the American highway system was not continent on pre existing trails whereas advances in computer technology are continent on those technologies that precede them and form their foundation. Wamba's analogy is without merit and his assertion about Chomsky's beliefs regarding invention is an absurd interpretation. Chomsky is simply using the Internet as an example of a technology that was developed largely by public resources before entrepreneurial innovation took over in order to make the point that entrepreneurial innovation is not essential to progress. It is a true fact that taxpayer dollars spent by the state during the Cold War did in some ways contribute to the invention of the Internet. This basic historical fact does not really merit elaboration. The existence of technological innovations made by private groups does not contradict Chomsky's claim and more importantly the history of Ethernet cables could not be more irrelevant to the outcome of a hypothetical online debate between Noam Chomsky and Jeff Kenyon. Rather than taking Wamba's straw man of Chomsky's philosophy for granted, I suggest voters read more about directly from Chomsky himself if they so wish. I will provide some links to facilitate this. However, Chomsky's philosophy is not essential to this debate and I will not waste anyone's time describing and defending it. It is completely unreasonable to assume that Chomsky would have reached his level of renown and success if his views were the utter garbage described by Con. They are at least reasonable enough to be successfully defended on an international stage over the course of many years, and they should suffice for the level of intellectual rigor demanded by the voters of DDO. This argument is not an appeal of authority but an appeal to common sense. Could Chomsky have had a successful career as a public intellectual if his views are so absurd that they cannot so much as be taken seriously on a casual debate website? Of course not, yet this is the only argument my opponent has to offer against Chomsky's chances of winning the debate. I doubt anyone here fully agrees with Chomsky and many people vehemently disagree with him, but one would have to be very closed-minded to simply dismiss his arguments as ridiculous without any further consideration. Conclusion: The only thing my opponent has done is attempted to convince us that a world renowned intellectual is actually "ignorant and illogical. " He would have us believe that an intellectually 20 year old college student has done more research and has more carefully examined his views than an 82 year old professor and social critic whose academic resume is arguably the best in the world. In attempting to make this point, he has focused on one comment by Chomsky and strayed far away from anything resembling the topic of this debate in a failed attempt to disprove the argument of this one paragraph (thus, presumably, destroying Chomsky's credibility forever). Besides this, he has offered absolutely nothing else. He has not offered anything in to support Kenyon's debate abilities, so if it were not for my honest presentation of him we would not be unjustified in assuming Kenyon was an Internet user of average intelligence who could not locate New Zealand on a map. There is virtually no constructive argument in my opponent's case at all, only a lengthy and uninformed diatribe against a man who is, for better or worse, one of the most influential thinkers of recent history. Sources and Resources for Readers: Biographical information about Chomsky found here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Information about Chomsky's politics found here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Noam Chomsky's Website: . http://www.chomsky.info... J. Kenyon's DDO Profile: . http://www.debate.org...