How does Noam Chomsky always slaughter his opponents in debates?
I was watching the famous Noam Chomsky debates on youtube today (they have more than a million views combined) with Dershowitz, Pearle, etc. and wondering what rhetorical devices Chomsky uses to make his opponents look like veritable fools! how does he do it? how can one man know so much?
- 10 years agoBest Answer
An incredible analytical mind, and the ability to verbalize complex ideas.
- 4 years ago
Funny, I didn't find him convincing & found his opponents much more effective. Maybe because I'm not a die hard fan of nonsense views on politics & false arguments. It's a well known fact in arguing --- if you aren't trying for real truth, & only aiming to "win" & make others look foolish, you can appear more effective. Truth & taking total views into account & aiming for solutions, can be a real obstacle in an argument. Pay close attention to dictators who were voted in originally... it's very much their style (this aim to win, ignore the truth). It's always easy to "put holes" in arguments... it's much harder to have real ideas & solutions. That's why it's a different game to campaign for office, than to run the office. It's why Chomsky manipulates well, but anyone skilled or intelligent is quickly put off by his arguments... unless they have an axe to grind with Israel or whatever & don't fact check or care about reality. =================== Chomsky - isn't so brillant & many feel that way. He's self congratulatory - a different concept. So Chomsky runs off people (MIT) -- that's generally the sign of an egomanic who's threatened because his work isn't all there... and needs to have control instead. Any one in math research will tell you, the greatly skilled folks have no trouble working together - even if they see things differently. It's only the facade ones that play games. Scaerdrys I'm a math graduate -- which is why I can see through the manipulation & lack of logic in Chomsky's comments. Including even in linguistics. When you have to use "large" words & overly complicate explanations, you're blowing smoke screens every time.... which was obvious when I persisted through to the core.
- Anonymous6 years ago
This I think 1. well read 2 calm at all times with a poker face
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- scaerdrysLv 710 years ago
Simle answer: he doesn't, any more than stage magicians make bunnies disappear. He just creates the illusion that he has mastery over the topic of the debate. He looks impressive, but that is the benefit from being able to get all of one's facts from Noam Chomskyland. The rest of us mere mortals have to do research, and rely on sources that are not just ourselves (if you've ever read a Noam Chomsky paper, you would know what I mean. If the man cites references at all, 9 times out of 10, it is to a paper that he wrote. In the 10% of instances when the reference is not to himself, 9 times out of ten, it is to someone who has been his lackey for a while). This creates a situation where Noam emphatically and passionately lectures the audience about a world that exists in his head, and his opponent is forced to do what he can with a world that has to be objectively verified.
Additionally, he's a big fan of ad hominem attacks on his opponent, which are compelling, but illogical, particularly when they cannot be substantiated or warranted in the debate (I've already pointed out that the Noam is really not a fan of substantaitable claims). He's a lot less impressive if you do follow up fact-checking research after a debate. There is also the part where he comes off as deeply profound by spurting out strange 'factoids' that definately have no correspondence or realistic consequence in a ponderous tone, typically using big words and conflating concepts that have no place being together (eg, his perrenial argument that the demand that Israel be recognized as a state is the same thing as insisting that Palestine not be...this is only true if you take the 'with me or against me' line that most anti-Israel lectures tend to take--projecting their bigotry onto Israel) He does the same thing in linguistics (my field of study).
Indeed--it's so striking that most people don't even realize how much he does it unless they look at a Chomsky 'works cited' page themselves.Source(s): Hi, again
- 5 years ago
By being a pathological liar, and ensuring that his loyal fanbase remain a group of uneducated, totalitarianism-fetishizing, Sharia-aggrandizing Useful Idiots who will swallow whatever tripe he offers up, as evidenced here.
- Zena IC XC NIKALv 710 years ago
INoam Chomsky is an acedemic , limguist and britlliant.
That is a good start to being a great debater.
Noam Avram Chomsky
I love Noam Chomsky and his books and him. Don't find him deceptive but an original. He is a gifted speaker and Intellect. and combines facts with his own description of truth in perfect English
- 5 years ago
What? Are you talking about the way he lies himself into corners, and then throws tantrums and walks out fo the debates when he gets called on it? Or did you mean how he attempts to revise words and history to suit his needs?
- 10 years ago
Funny, I didn't find him convincing & found his opponents much more effective.
Maybe because I'm not a die hard fan of nonsense views on politics & false arguments.
Angel put it well & it's a well known fact in arguing --- if you aren't trying for real truth, & only aiming to "win" & make others look foolish, you can appear more effective. Truth & taking total views into account & aiming for solutions, can be a real obstical in an argument.
Pay close attention to dictators who were voted in originally... it's very much their style (this aim to win, ignore the truth).
It's always easy to "put holes" in arguments... it's much harder to have real ideas & solutions. That's why it's a different game to campaign for office, than to run the office. It's why Chomsky manipulates well, but anyone skilled or intelligent is quickly put off by his arguments... until they have an axe to grind with Israel & don't fact check or care about reality.
I noticed that..pulled a lingistic book in the bookstore & every reference was to a prior paper of his own. Not an original idea in there (which would require real facts from other people's databases to put something together.)
- 10 years ago
evidently it has something to do with an underhanded and sneaky approach of facts and irrefutable information.
you have no idea how distressing that can be when the party line is supposed to be the accepted rhetoric and debate is encouraged only AFTER such drivel is accepted as law.
i mean, really, how tacky.