/lit/ - Literature

Just a few, ah, provisos

A couple of quid pro quos

>>3861450
>yes, ~ ofcourse

Buckley is overrated, right?

He fooled us with his accent and (lack of) chin. He spoke highly while he thought lowly. A cordial host who always treaded the line, and a figure for conservatives to uphold so they can feel better about themselves, Buckley included.

I'll check out his Yale book, but is there anything else that he's done that's good?

>>3862135
>treaded

If you're going to insult a man's intelligence you should know basic English.

Hey faggot, learned how to present an argument yet?

>>3862145
Not a native English speaker. 3rd language. Give me a break. I learned that the past form is trod today. So that's good.

But really, Buckley is conservatism light, right? I'm not bashing him because of his political stance. I'm on the same side. I drink liberal tears.

>>3862155

>Not a native English speaker

You could have just said you were a conservative and I would have let you off the hook.

>>3862162
Well, conservative, at least on this board, implies that one is American.

So you like Buckley, huh? What do you like about him? I know as much about him as I do Reagan, which is not a lot.

Watch Gore Vidal get under Buckley's skin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8

>>3862178
That's because Gore Vidal is a giant faggot. I still can't believe that a thread commemorating him was stickied when he died.

>>3862197
Way to display the intellectual integrity of conservatism, dumbass.

>>3862153
Buckley verbally obliterated him during that debate. Plus, he threatened to smash the asthenic Chomsky in the face; the latter was visibly shaken. Buckley layeth the smackdown on Gnomic Noam.

>>3862232
>implying gore wasn't a huge faggot

>>3862178
watch Christopher Hitchens obliterate him,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeaT6s4ubBo

>>3862176
not the guy you were talking to, but the buckman is cool because he was a cia agent. he had the intellectual courage to condemn the collectivist trend that overtook the american education system. he was erudite, polite and aggressive. he was a cool dude.

>>3862262
But it doesn't happen. Buckley remains cool throughout, assured of his superiority; only occasionally does he rectify some of Hitchens' excesses, which Hitch seems to concede. The only one who gets destroyed is the other half of the conservative sandwich, between which Hitchens is.

>>3862274
Your prose is pretty.

Implying people talking over each other constitutes a debate.

Sure is amateur hour.

>>3862320
Since it's difficult to detect sarcasm on the internet, I'm going to assume for my own egotistical reasons that you're sincere.

Anyway, if you want pretty prose then read Buckley's stuff, or Hitchens'. Also, watch his talk with Norman Mailer (it's on youtube); it gets really interesting because the views of both are perfectly antithetical (Mailer starts praising Castro, at which point Buckley gets duly aggressive).

>>3862344
Have you watched a single episode of Firing Line? It was one of the most intensely intellectual talk shows at the time, and still endures as such. As Hitchens said, if you left the one-hour show having NOT made your point well enough, it was your own fault and no one else's.

Is there a single instance of someone being completely convinced of their opponent's position during a debate and conceding the argument?

>>3862153
You know what I love best about Chomsky?
He leaves his multi-million dollar home in an elite, lilly-white neighborhood (all paid for from the large fees he is paid by the Department of Defense) to fly first class to various universities where he is paid his $50,000 speaking fee to tell them the rich are telling them what to think.

>>3862363
There's a video on youtube that I once saw where a religious caller to a talk show gets converted. Not a debate, I know, but it's the only example of a spontaneous and live tergiversation I can think of for now.

The point of a debate is to convince the audience, not the opponent. If such a thing were to happen, the apostate would incur a life long curse of shame.

>>3862381
>The point of a debate is to convince the audience

But I don't think that happens, either. Or if it does, it's typically based on the speaker's rhetorical skills rather than the substance of his argument. Instead of face to face debates they should just submit essays.

>>3862372
Chomsky's been unimportant for a long time now.

>>3862394
>based on the speaker's rhetorical skills rather than the substance of his argument

Sure. I've witnessed a few William Lane Craig debates, for example, and all of them are theatrical performances, expertly calibrated to make the opponent look inept and daze the audience. But I think a victory gained by rhetoric alone is only transient, since the audience will mull over the issue later on and probably see how hollow the arguments really were.

And I agree that the essay form is much better, since the writers aren't pressed for time as much and thus can make a more rigorous case.

>>3862433
He is excellent at maintaining the belief that he is winning and the condescending the opposing argument, no matter how rational. With such belief in himself and disbelief in and condescension towards his opponent, he invites the audience to side with him, on a purely muh confidence level.

>>3862447
Yeah, since WLC pretty much always begins, he lays out his five point argument, and next round he accuses the antagonist of not refuting any of his points, etc. There's actually a debate between him and Peter Atkins, moderated by Buckley. Atkins is obviously inexperienced in the debate format, which gives Craig the edge (fake though it may be). You should check it out, it's up on youtube.

>>3862178
So he follows the liberal tactic of name calling to seem as if he has the upper hand in the eyes of the audience?

Yes, how about I call you pedophile in front of 50,000 people and let them all draw conclusions as to what I mean by pedophile when what I really mean is that you love children in a non-sexual way. You don't have to worry.

>>3862447

I find him pretty good usually. His opponents tend to under-prepare (ie, he's always at least two steps ahead in the jig) and on the strength of arguments presented in debates he usually kicks their butts.