(If you like this debate and I didn't tag you, don't feel left out.)
80/240. I like Foucault much more than Chomsky and wish he hadn't died during the debate. Foucault can seem slightly cynical sometimes, like when he says he doesn't believe in justice, but then he explains why and it makes sense, though I would call his "non-justice" itself justice and attribute the problem to people's resentment-laden ideal of "justice" rather than the mere idea of some things being just and others unjust.
On the other hand Chomsky says he wants to crush the whole empiricist tradition and simply believes behaviorism is the purest form of empiricism. Behaviorism is bad, but empiricism is not behaviorism and Cartesian dualism is not valid. Chomsky literally doesn't believe in sense perceptions, which he has also made clear by e.g. "studying" Chinese using only his knowledge of English. No wonder modern linguistics tends to be trash.
Chomsky: Is kind of an ass, in both the sense of being stupid and the sense of being mean. I would rate him 2 stars as a human being instead of one because he occasionally has a valid point even if he also obfuscates it by acting flagrantly against it, and he invented generative grammar which was kind of nice.
Foucault: Seems occasionally misguided, but he himself says he works from a very specific context which makes everything make sense, kind of like his inspiration Nietzsche who is like "yeah be evil" but then clearly doesn't want pure evil, and is a much nicer person so I would rate him 4 stars as a human being.
If anyone likes watching videos more than reading, the Chomsky-Foucault debates have been broken up in various ways and put on YouTube for your viewing/listening:
I'll take a look