Noam Chomsky should be shot for treason

Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, but unlike most suburban anarchist kids, he actually has more than just a brain stem. He makes anarchism seem like an intellectual philosophy and writes essays on the foreign policy of the US. Every god-fearing American knows that he's an America-hating liberal who should be shot for treason.

I would like to thank Alk07 for proposing this topic.

First, I will get some key definitions out of the way.

Treason: The U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3) defines treason as levying war against the U.S.; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
(Source: U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3 - http://www.constitution.org...)

=====
Application to Noam Chomsky
=====

Pro has not met his burden in this debate, which is to show that Noam Chomsky's actions are applicable to treason law (defined by the constitution as stated above). Pro will have to show that Prof. Chomsky has levied war against the U.S., or has given aid or comfort to the enemies of the U.S.

I would like to thank my opponent for joining this highly intellectual debate.
But Noam Chomsky is an ANARCHIST so he should be shot!
RULE 1
anarchists are evil satanic worshipers who want to end the world
therefore Noam Chosmsky is comiting treason

Anarchism is not related to satanism, worshipers of sataniam, or people bent on world destruction.

More importantly, it is not related to the necessary components of the U.S. law regarding treason: "Levying war against the U.S.; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Anarchism is defined as a political philosophy whose followers believe that government is an unnecessary burden on society.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

A political philosophy cannot be inherently violent. Some of its adherents might be, but the philosophy itself is not. As such, most anarchists do not violently oppose the state. Noam Chomsky is among these.

I will again reiterate Pro's burden. He must show that Noam Chomsky has actively levied war against the U.S., or provided and and comfort to her enemies; or has conspired to levy war against the U.S., or conspired to provide aid and comfort to her enemies.

Good Luck.

Unfortunately my opponent has been absent and unable to make his third round argument. I ask that readers do not disqualify him for this reason alone. There are still two rounds in which he can make an argument.

My argument extends to the next round.

Another forfeit. Hopefully Pro returns to make an argument in the final round.

Arguments extend.

Another forfeit without making a single viable argument. The winner of this debate should be clear.