<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Open Culture - Latest Comments in Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley, 1969</title><link>http://oculture.disqus.com/</link><description>None</description><atom:link href="https://oculture.disqus.com/noam_chomsky_vs_william_f_buckley_1969/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:26:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley, 1969</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/10/noam_chomsky_vs_william_f_buckley_1969.html#comment-1029167683</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Apart from his logical inconsistencies, this guy (Buckley), has been caught with his pants down concerning Greek history...He is not even deserving a serious answer. One of the easiest debates for Chomsky, I guess.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nikos</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:26:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley, 1969</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/10/noam_chomsky_vs_william_f_buckley_1969.html#comment-1538649812</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Having just seen the video (and amazed I hadn't encountered it before now), I was taken aback.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buckley comes across as a quintessential forensics champion who is dealt a bad hand.  He continually tries to derail and pick holes in Chomsky's points, even sadly using a bit of condescension and smarmy ad hominem to do so.  Chomsky, on the other hand, comes across as incredibly knowledgeable about a very complex subject, unflappable and able to back up his points with multiple factual reinforcements.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have always admired Buckley as an apologist and debater, but he is so clearly outmatched here it's a little embarrassing to see one of my forensic heroes stumbling like that.  Chomsky seems very able to support his arguments and must get the nod here.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Gwgregg</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:17:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley, 1969</title><link>http://www.openculture.com/2008/10/noam_chomsky_vs_william_f_buckley_1969.html#comment-187245908</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Having just seen the video (and amazed I hadn't encountered it before now), I was taken aback.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Buckley comes across as a quintessential forensics champion who is dealt a bad hand.  He continually tries to derail and pick holes in Chomsky's points, even sadly using a bit of condescension and smarmy ad hominem to do so.  Chomsky, on the other hand, comes across as incredibly knowledgeable about a very complex subject, unflappable and able to back up his points with multiple factual reinforcements.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have always admired Buckley as an apologist and debater, but he is so clearly outmatched here it's a little embarrassing to see one of my forensic heroes stumbling like that.  Chomsky seems very able to support his arguments and must get the nod here.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Gwgregg</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:17:39 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>