Post Debates/Arguments Videos

Frank Zappa on Crossfire 1986 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9856_xv8gc

 

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

 

Noam Chomsky vs. William F Buckley on the Vietnam War : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4

 

Mr. Rogers speaking to the US Senate :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

 

John Adams defending the British in court :

http://youtu.be/Iyrv5emDC1Y

 

Carl Sagan attempts to debate with a creationist :

http://youtu.be/Ar6Pd8TU3Dg

Welch versus Joseph McCarthy

 

 

This is more of an interview, but it borders on philosophical debate...

1977: Gzowski interviews Iggy Pop

Paul Keating, Australian Labor party politician

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnwn4q_ZE9c

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=NdAoQvqh7eY

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC1uGbk6e8M

 

Christopher Hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR1uorQWNDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

one of my favorite videos of all time

 

 

[youtubehd]lYeoTFbLo_Y[/youtubehd]

I'm listening to Boyd Rice and Bob Larsen duke it out right now. Audio only, but pretty entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwx4DV3Tkw

Bump.

here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w

Edited December 3, 2012 by Awepittance

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

worth it for just seeing how bat shit crazy this bill donohue guy is

[youtubehd]H7aiBbA8_Fg[/youtubehd]

Edited December 5, 2012 by ZeroHour

anytime Hitchens veers outside of how retarded monotheism is, it hurts....but otherwise Hitch is pure gold.

  On 12/3/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w

  On 12/4/2012 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

 

There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say. quite superficial I'm sure.

 

I plan on listening to the entire Chomsky vid btw, I always try to examine and listen to a healthy amount of criticism of opinions I agree with and intellectuals I respect.

Edited December 5, 2012 by joshuatx

I'm a huge-ish fan of both of them.

  On 12/5/2012 at 3:56 AM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 12/3/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w

 

  On 12/4/2012 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

 

 

There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say.

 

 

 

i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much.

 

 

but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily.

 

basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around.

Also, I think that Chomsky arguments usually as equally interesting and valid as Hitchens, it's just Hitchens is more often than not far way, way more entertaining and gripping. Hell, it's really Hitchslaps versus, uh, Chomksmacks...Chomstrikes? Chomskeets? :/

  On 11/30/2012 at 5:24 AM, compson said:

Mr. Rogers speaking to the US Senate :

[media][/media]

 

Real moving one, I listen to this on occasion to put myself in a better mood.

Edited December 5, 2012 by joshuatx

I found Patrice not only hilarious but actually pretty consistent in his argument. Usually comedians or other entertainers, even when I'm on their side, get a bit too ad-hoc or hypocritical. I think he's quite on point here.

 

  On 12/4/2012 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

 

I'm sure he was, but as soon as he allied himself with the psychopaths otherwise known as the 'crazies' (quote from former Reagan official Ray Mcgovern) he was completely toast. You don't come back from that shit. Granted whatever his work was that predated his turn to the stupid & very dark side is valid and entertaining. I just have absolutely zero respect for him promoting the war on terror especially the war on Iraq, and it left a black mark on his career that eclipsed pretty much everything else he did in my eyes until his death.

At least Chomsky is consistent and never let his egoistic thirst for blood get in the way of his ideals. Repetitive, boring, whatever you want to call him, he's just not cunt who got on board with one of the worst, tragic and depressing periods of American imperialism .

Edited December 7, 2012 by Awepittance

  On 12/5/2012 at 4:14 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 12/5/2012 at 3:56 AM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 12/3/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w

 

  On 12/4/2012 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

 

 

There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say.

 

 

 

i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much.

 

 

but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily.

 

basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around.

 

 

spot on, and as much as Hitchens tried to explain why he thought killing almost 1 million arabs to stop WMDs was valid he never came out with anything remotely convincing to a critical thinker in regards to the war on terror or islam. It always hinged on the sort of knee jerkish mentality of 'they want to kill us' so we should kill them out of 'self defense' which to me is borderline child-like. I find it sort of insulting to call Chomsky's views ideologically narrow minded, in my mind he's one of the most principled and consistent writers on American Foreign policy who has simply never caved to modern propaganda (in the same way Hitchens has, repeatedly). If that's what being 'narrow minded' is, count me in.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Awepittance

I will say that, intellectually, I trust Chomsky about 1000x more than Hitchens.

Glenn Greenwald VS David Rivkin

David Rivkin's best argument for why they need to violate the consitution to spy on people is that they are only using it for 'people who talk to terrorists' lol and then he strawmans Greenwald repeatedly by saying that George Bush isn't spying on you! That's absurd to think the president is reading your e-mails!




Greenwald Vs Israel die-hard Elliot Spitzer



Greenwald Vs David Frum

another dangerous propagandist, David Frum tries to reasonably and intellectually cloak why torture is ok Edited December 7, 2012 by Awepittance

  On 12/7/2012 at 12:57 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 12/5/2012 at 4:14 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

 

  On 12/5/2012 at 3:56 AM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 12/3/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

here's a video of Chomsky calmly bitch slapping neo-con stooge lackey cunt Christopher Hitchens repeatedly

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eqHTBChj2w

 

  On 12/4/2012 at 7:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Hitchens was a (self-declared) socialist.

 

 

There is such a watershed of Chomsky that I will in no way ever dismiss him nor his sincerity, but I agree with Hitchens that his views in the last decade or so seem irrelevant and ideologically narrow-minded. It's as if Chomsky is so developed in political views he can't adjust them to realities of the present day world. In other words, I feel like with Hitchens I could absorb an opinion of his I didn't agree with (say his arguments for the 2003 Iraq invasion) because it would be backed with an array of historical tidbits, moral arguments, etc. I could hear an argument, learn something interesting, but still disagree. With Chomsky I just feel like he re-hashes the same broad critiques of American foreign policy and capitalism, even if it's regarding a subject with little to do with either. I feel like skipping through his speeches all the time, because I already have an idea of what he's going to say.

 

 

 

i think he gets repetitive simply because of the massive scope of his material...if anything hes overpublished, tries to attack too much.

 

 

but his explanation of anti-authoritarian attitudes in criticism is spot on and i try to remind myself of it daily.

 

basically the burden of proof is on authority to prove the need for its existence, not the other way around.

 

 

spot on, and as much as Hitchens tried to explain why he thought killing almost 1 million arabs to stop WMDs was valid he never came out with anything remotely convincing to a critical thinker in regards to the war on terror or islam. It always hinged on the sort of knee jerkish mentality of 'they want to kill us' so we should kill them out of 'self defense' which to me is borderline child-like. I find it sort of insulting to call Chomsky's views ideologically narrow minded, in my mind he's one of the most principled and consistent writers on American Foreign policy who has simply never caved to modern propaganda (in the same way Hitchens has, repeatedly). If that's what being 'narrow minded' is, count me in.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2012 by compson

  On 12/7/2012 at 1:26 AM, compson said:

 

 

 

 

I've seen this video already a few times, and it makes me cringe and wince more every time i watch it. To describe it as disgusting is an understatement