"Game over, I moved to get close enough to talk. I don’t remember if I bothered to introduce myself, or just said, “excuse me, Mr. Will, would you debate Noam Chomsky?”

"His reply will never leave me. He did his best not to show annoyance at having his serenity disturbed. “No, we don’t share enough premises to make it interesting.” Doing my best to defend that position, at least for the only sort of debate that George Will would find interesting, one that considers the effective strategies of world domination and delicately balances the sayable and unsayable Kissingerian tenets of realpolitik, I suppose he has a point. But would it not be of value to the citizens of the world to retreat momentarily from the heights of grand power manipulation and begin with some essential assumed commonly possessed premises? The survival of mankind, the value of an individual human life, the long-term devastation wrought by the continued compromising and destruction of individual citizens’ or soldiers’ underlying moral sense, the value of truth?"

For the same reason, I presume, when it comes to the Middle East, Will would never condescend to debate Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan pappe, Neve Gordon, Michael Neumann, Jeff Halper, Amira Hass, Jonathan Cook, Sara Roy, or Richard Falk: "Too few shared premisses." But this is only half of Will's real reason. The other half, unmentioned by George "the lying coward" Will, is a mendacious or cravenly aversion on his part to having those different premisses explored and clarified. One "premise" of the aforementioned individuals that Will clearly does not share is "respect for facts, empirical evidence, and internal consistency."