I wouldn't say that "very upset" is a correct or fair characterization for disputes in linguistics.

Chomsky's universal grammar work was based on too few languages, too little data, and doesn't hold up when you look at all human languages and usage.

See also Jenny Saffran's empirical work on infant statistical language learning.

The broad idea that some things are innate doesn't vindicate Chomsky's specific theories.

Saying that Chomskyan linguistics 'only works on a few languages' is such a ridiculous claim that only is stated by people who haven't engaged with generative linguistics since the 1960s. There's enormous work on typologically diverse languages such as Japanese, Salish languages, Greenlandic, Basque, Gungbe or Kwa. I can provide references if you'd like.