Funnily enough, I just finished reading
this article. I don't know about WFB - he was obviously a very smart and energetic and talented individual, but his ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholicism made him sound a bit mad. His wife was great, though.
I don't know why people don't prevail against Chomsky more often and more effectively, as he always strikes me as being rather easy to take down. So many of his statements in public debate are so utterely and flagrantly decontextualised and distorted that thay are worthless. There's a debate with Richard Perle on youtube, in which Perle attempts, quite consisely, to explain that a State Department policy paper produced by staffers from one of the many Foggy Bottom departments in the mid-80s is not the same thing as Reagan Administration policy. Obviously true, but Chomsky's retort is, well, people involved in the Administration always claim to know more than those her weren't. Hardly high-calibre stuff. (Even more silly, as Perle spent most of his time at Defense in bureaucratic civil war with State.)
After this little exchange, you can see Perle's eyes glaze over and he simply sinks into morose boredom, allowing Chomsky to ramble on and on and throw his accusations and mild tantrums. This leaves the impression that he eviscerates Perle, even though he doesn't. But I think this is how he does it: by boring his opponents into submission.