Who won

First half- Foucalt
Second half- Chomsky

I'd say you were just jealous of their armchairs.

is that orange juice

Chomsky.

Gnome

Regurgitating lame bourgeois stawman arguments of socialism won't make them any more true. For all Chomsky's remarkable skill at demolishing pro-Western ideology his criticism of socialist movements never amounts to anything more than an effective copy+paste of the standard liberal narrative.

Isn't it amazing to think this kind of thing was actually broadcast back in the day?

Chomsky

But Chomsky's argument is actually one against capitalism. You see, if we were all lumps of clay, then humans could be moulded into capitalism. But this is not the case, despite the best efforts to make workers automatons and beat class consciousness out of our heads with mindless consumerism.

Foucault obviously won.

What makes you think it isn't the case that humans have been molded into capitalism though? I would argue that a little class consciousness and anti-consumerism are necessary for capitalism to continue functioning

They are both worse.

Welcome back Joe!

Chomsky

Chomsky didn't die a horrific death with bacteria eating his brain, so I'd say Chomsky tbh

Any thought that isn't either materialist or naturalist is retarded

Foucault. Anyone who says Foucault is arguing that we're not biological creatures hasn't read anything by him and didn't even listen to the debate.

I won

Foucault

Chomsky is too caught up in Christian morality to understand the cue balls position.

...

el chompo

Lets be honest here guys

Foucault doesn't know what he was talking about either

...

nuh uh fuckalls brain is 2 fried by dizeez

this.
they were both talking past each other half the time, you can't really say either of them "won."

They are the lucky ones.

Because it's like a chess player taking on a fucking free Jazz Saxophonist, it was a waste of time.

thats a great analogy

I'm not sure of the significance of this statement. Humans have been convinced before that it is the height of virtue to be ascetic, to be subservient to higher ideals, that pleasure and happiness could ultimately be bad.

Humans may always feel pain if you prick them with a knife, but their reaction to the pain can range from "thank you master" to "I'll kill your whole family". I'd say that in many cases, humans have become "moulded" to capitalism in the sense that they think its values are normal and natural.

observe this poster's wealth

I've read Foucault, that is why I say one is better for not having done so.

Debates cannot be won you fucking retards

Sure, babby.

I've read a lot of retarded texts ranging from left to right – in fact, I'm reading Locke right now and I genuinely hate it – and I would never advise against reading anything that grows your general knowledge of things.

If you read Foucault (you didn't, but for the fun of it) I guess you can give us a short critique of him.

incoming spooky postmodernism meme

...

t. billy

The gnome, the fact that anyone ITT even considers any other answer is just a sign of how far we've fallen.

...

All I wanna be is El Chompo

...

Care to elaborate?

IMO OP's question is pretty misguided, since the two enter (directly, in the case of Foucault, and indirectly, in the case of Chomsky) at different points and thus contribute to philosophy totally differently. The friendly mood of the debate reflects the understanding of this, btw.

Chomsky is first of all a linguist from the analytical tradition, and Foucault is a philosopher of power and discourse from the continental (genaological, more precisely) tradition.

It is not far fetched to say, imo, that Foucault is on home turf, and that Chomsky has marginal contributions in political philosophy. The debate implicitly acknowledges this and respects the fact.

BTW, Chomsky. He later, post-debate, says that Foucault was a clever fella.

One only wishes that the interaction between Lacan and Chomsky could have taken a similar setting.

Entirely possible. Chomsky's an atheist. The Judeo-Christian tradition has a large share of ideas. The culture Chomsky was brought up in is Christian. He is an atheist.

What's your point, frog?

Foucault obviously won

linguisticcapital.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/i-think-with-my-feet/

and thus Lacan's status for Chomsky as "charlatan" was born. such shame

whenever I post this I just love the fact that I have to search for "lacan chomsky feet"

I think you are the one that doesn't know what he was talking about

effects: turned little kids into trannies

haha, so ironic, Mark

I did not hit her, I did not!

care2provide sources or do you confess to being a shithead ;-D ??