O'Reilly VS. Moore..

[sonic1234_us]

Not sure how many people here actually follow politics.. but i found this hilarious as i watched it last night. I found a copy of it in text on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html) and posted it here. Go ahead and post who you think won :lol:

And no huge debating. :rant:

The place is an office above the Democratic Convention going on... and Moore is the person who made Fahrenheit 9/11 for those who don't know.

Moore: Bush 'Didn't Tell the Truth'
Wednesday, July 28, 2004

MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: That’s fair. We’ll just stick to the issues.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues… all right good. Now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by — all of those investigations come to the same conclusion. That’s not a lie.

MOORE: Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth.

MOORE: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it and then I would realize, oh Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a…

O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president…

MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie.

O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine…

MOORE: But that was your question…

O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious…

MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test…

O'REILLY: All right, now you’re dancing around a question…

MOORE: No, I’m not. There’s no dancing.

O'REILLY: He didn’t lie.

MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true.

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.

MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody.

O'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too.

MOORE: His own people told him. I mean, he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said, “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue… did you read Woodward’s book?

MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book.

O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

MOORE: I know who he is.

O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, ‘slam dunk.’” If you’re the president, you ignore all that?

MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.

O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...

MOORE: OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O'REILLY: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don’t know a worse…

O'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie.

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that…

O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question…

MOORE: “Mom and Dad it was just bad information…”

O'REILLY: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie. Go ahead.

MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question.

O'REILLY: OK.

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”

MOORE: But what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people.

MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator.

O'REILLY: Well, we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction.

MOORE: But that was the reason…

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction…

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake.

MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.

O'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents.

MOORE: So we agree on that.

O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened.

MOORE: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional.

MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake.

O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that.

MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead.

O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that.

MOORE: So, that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me

O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering.

MOORE: No, but my point is…

O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question.

MOORE: But why? What did they die for?

O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people…

MOORE: No, that was not the reason…

O'REILLY: That’s what they died for…

MOORE: …they were given…

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake.

MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world…

O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question…

MOORE: Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.

MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you?

MOORE: Uh huh.

O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.

MOORE: But we didn’t go after them, did we?

O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.

MOORE: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O'REILLY: OK, well look you can’t kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan — you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O'REILLY: How?

MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was…

O'REILLY: Why was that?

MOORE: That’s my question.

O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two-month head start.

O'REILLY: All right, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O'REILLY: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long — you would have let him go?

MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.

MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded.

MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

O'REILLY: I know you are but…

MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to…

MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself..

MOORE: Your child? It’s Bush sending the children there.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old…

O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

MOORE: Say, “I, Bill O’Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah.”

O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous…

MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —

MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that?

MOORE: So, you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

MOORE: Now come on.

O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

MOORE: How do you know that?

O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.

MOORE: How do you know that?

O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.

MOORE: Look, let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done; you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted…

O'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

MOORE: The people rose up.

O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt.

MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up…

O'REILLY: All right, all right.

MOORE: …that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O'REILLY: One more.

MOORE: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam…

MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up?

O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off…

MOORE: Well that’s true in many countries throughout the world…

O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame…

MOORE: …and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways…

O'REILLY: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O'REILLY: I would.

MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: Where’s the recruiter?

O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me.

MOORE: No, I want you to live. I want you to live.

O'REILLY: I appreciate that Michael Moore everybody. There he is.

[Damascus]

That is actually the calmest I've seen Bill on his show with a guest he disagrees with.

[Canadia142]

my God I can't believe I read all that, so in conclusion I must say

lololololololol Bill o Reily is teh sukc and is a l00zer!!!!1111!!!11 lolololololollololol

[Technetium]

They both look pretty ridiculous.

[masterazn]

Why do I get a feeling O'Reilly is...well...not very bright?

[redneck hater]

Well, I really don't like Moore much at all, but I absolutely HATE O'reilly. I dunno, as stated above, they both look pretty rediculous, but man...I'd say Moore had the upper hand in this debate.

[Jameswildman]

I can't say either one of them won that argument, looked pretty evenhanded to me. I think on the first issue, it's likely that Bush didn't exactly lie, but instead acted upon bad information. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't sacrifice my hypothetical child to secure fallujah.

I strongly dislike both Michael Moore and Bill O'reilly, both of them are off the deep end. Moore's been getting more attention recently, and his factual irresponsibility in his "documentaries" makes me wonder if he actually believes what he says. He's more of a propaganda artist than a crusader for any cause, many of his causes I agree with but the way he pushes them makes me sick. Bill O'Reilly I know less about, but from the time I watched his show he came off as a pompous *******...

[CyberHawk]

Well ya kinda end up on Moore's lvl in the end of any discussion. Hes kinda good at bringing up crap like hes got a mental block of how things change.

[Corneo]

Hahah I was actually rooting for Moore. I can't stand O' Reilly.

[acceleration turkey]

wow, ive always thought that michael moore is at least a funny guy, even if he is an apologist for non-american violence. but geez, what a rhetorical moron. everything he says in the niterview is a massive red herring. "WHAT ABOUT THE TOEHR DICTATROS LOL" "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, WOULD YOU KILL BABIES TO STOP BABY EATERS LOL." he has no concept of reality. asking someone if they would die or have their children killed is hardly a test case for war. michael moore is the worst kind of sophist, drawing attention away from what is really happening with his "think of the children' nonsense. its amazing how many people were struck by his crappy crockumentary. its all sentiment and no reasoning. "PEOPLE HAVE DIED OMG LOL." what an intellectual weakling.

[SirKnightmare]

From that transcript it seemed like a very even debate.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I think O'Reilly entirely destroyed Moore in that debate.

Moore was not making any points, O'Reilly was. Moore kept saying 'xyz shouldn't have happened' and O'Reilly pointed out that it did, and it was a mistake. O'Reilly can be an arse, but he wasn't this time. He hammered home the right points and didn't try to bring non-sequitors in like Moore did.

An accident is an accident.

The troops did die to remove a dictator.

That is their job.

O'Reilly would be willing to give his life for that job, but he cannot speak for his children.

I am not a fan of either man, but I think that debate was VERY lopsided, and O'Reilly was on the winning side. I don't have much time now, but I'll write a lengthier response later.

[sonic1234_us]

A bit of rooting for Moore.. but i can kind of expect that :)

Oh well. In my opinion.. Bill screwed up when he said "I would sacrifice myself" He should of said something like "If my child were so inclined to join the military." Seriously.. when was the last time they had a draft?

But then again... how many german planes were over Pearl Harbor, Moore?

[SirKnightmare]

But then again... how many german planes were over Pearl Harbor, Moore?

Germany declared war on us because we declared war on Japan. Just to clarify.

[Painman]

[King Arthur]

Alright, we'll call it a draw.

[/King Arthur]

[sonic1234_us]

Germany declared war on us because we declared war on Japan. Just to clarify.
Um.. thats not what i meant :)


Moore: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

[cypresskicks]

I dislike both O'Reilly and Moore, though I felt, like others, that O'Reilly pegged down Moore on most of the issues, which caused Moore to continually jump from topic to topic until he could find refuge in a hypothetical situation, which O'Reilly handled as well as anyone could, and a matter of semantics, "Would you send your child to war?"and "Did the President lie or did he act on bad information?". What should Bush have done, all his intel said invade, not only his but also Great Britain's and Russia's, all the experts who he should rely on for their knowledge said invade, how could he just say " Despite all your information( though it turned out to be wrong) I just don't reckon, I'm going to invade." Just on his own personal whim, that wouldn't make for a good presidential decision. I don't think Bush is terribly intelligent, but I know that he isn't telepathic.

[zarikdon]

I agree with PLF. It's even worse if you watch the actual video. Bill was calm and collected and pressing his points well, while Moore was fumbling for responses and trying to dodge questions.

Right at the beginning, Moore got pinned on his "Bush is a liar" statement. Bush may have misrepresented evidence by picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe, but it's another step up to say that he explicitly lied. Of course, it's not possible for Moore to pull back from his position on national TV. The damage due to THAT would be far greater than looking like an idiot on the O'Reilly Factor. So, he held his ground and got slammed. Now, if Moore was a quick-thinking man, he would've responded that Bush was an exaggerator, and that was close enough in his book to being a liar, especially when we're talking about an issue as important as choosing to go to war. It's not a great response, but it can at least get you through a show. But whatever... it's the O'Reilly Factor. Moore isn't going to lose any fans.

The debate swung slightly back in Moore's favor when later Bill inexplicably refused to say that he would've sent his kid to secure Falluja. Why not? Even more puzzling, he wouldn't give an explanation and kept on avoiding the point. Maybe he knows something that I don't, or maybe he just thought Falluja was a mistake and didn't want to say so on TV. In any case, it was clear he had the high ground in the discussion at that point, so I really don't understand why he didn't just give SOME sort of response. Not a big deal though, since it didn't make up for what came before.

All in all, Bill came off as the level-headed guy (I'm sure he prepared ahead of time to deal with a guy like Moore), while Moore came off like a confused ***. No wonder mainstream Democrats are a little wary of associating with him. If you were a politician, a performance like that could cost you your career.

[cougar]

It's because Michael Moore only deals with sensationalist media and material. No more, no less.

[SaroDarksbane]

I think O'Reilly entirely destroyed Moore in that debate.

Moore was not making any points, O'Reilly was. Moore kept saying 'xyz shouldn't have happened' and O'Reilly pointed out that it did, and it was a mistake. O'Reilly can be an arse, but he wasn't this time. He hammered home the right points and didn't try to bring non-sequitors in like Moore did.

An accident is an accident.

The troops did die to remove a dictator.

That is their job.

O'Reilly would be willing to give his life for that job, but he cannot speak for his children.

I am not a fan of either man, but I think that debate was VERY lopsided, and O'Reilly was on the winning side. I don't have much time now, but I'll write a lengthier response later.
Well said!

Where can I buy my "I <3 PLF" bumper sticker?

[AeroJonesy]

The more I see of Michael Moore, the more I get how he works. And he's so good at it. He's like a high school kid on a date. He's got three moves, and they never work.

1) "Look at what you've done to the children"
2) Loaded questions
3) Calling out on someone high enough up in a corporation or government to do something, then whining about how they don't pay attention to his requests.

[SaroDarksbane]

The debate swung slightly back in Moore's favor when later Bill inexplicably refused to say that he would've sent his kid to secure Falluja
No, that's not we he asked. Moore asked if O'Reilly would sacrifice his kid to secure Falluja.

Had he asked, "If your kid enlisted in the military, and then came to you and said he was going to Iraq, would you approve?" O'Reilly would have been all over that. But the "Would you knowingly kill your child to do X" is a twisted statement.

Kinda like "Would you shoot your child in the head to end world hunger? No? Guess world hunger isn't worth trying to end, huh?"

[Mongoose88]

I agree with Pierrot le Fou in this one. O'Reilly, I think, had the upper hand in this debate.



MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don’t know a worse…

O'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie.

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that…


I found the point about Bush being misinformed very interesting. You can't blame a guy for listening to the CIA, Russian Intelligence, and British Intelligence. He certainly didn't lie to America like Moore insists. A lie is a false statement deliberately being presented as true...I don't think Bush deliberately lied to America.

Moore also implied in the debate that he wouldn't have removed Sadaam Hussein from power if it was up to him. That didn't score him any brownie points.

[mepersoner]

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?10947&OReilly_Factor&O%27Reilly%20vs.%20Moore&acc&Politics&1&ram-300

The video.

Honestly, I'm not sure how any of you can see O'Reilly winning it. Moore gets all his points across and O'Reilly gets nothing across.

Edit: O'Reilly fumbled the ball when he was asked about sacrificing his children to take out of power, he should've said it if was their choice, people CHOOSE to sign up for the military, it would be different had the draft been enlisted.

[zarikdon]

No, that's not we he asked. Moore asked if O'Reilly would sacrifice his kid to secure Falluja.

Had he asked, "If your kid enlisted in the military, and then came to you and said he was going to Iraq, would you approve?" O'Reilly would have been all over that. But the "Would you knowingly kill your child to do X" is a twisted statement.

Kinda like "Would you shoot your child in the head to end world hunger? No? Guess world hunger isn't worth trying to end, huh?"

Well, I thought the implication was just "have your kid enlist and then die in Fallujah... would that be worthwhile?" There's a difference between causing the death of your son or daughter by execution, and seeing them die in the course of combat. Maybe I read it wrong, but I figured Moore's aim was just to try to draw a parallel to a military family who lost a member.

In any case, that's not the point that puzzles me. I just don't get why O'Reilly didn't give a longer or clearer answer. Something along the lines you just said would've worked fine (if that's the working interpretation), or something like how "if my son or daughter died while securing Iraq, I'd be a sad but proud father." That's what a lot of families with causalties say, after all, and it would've answered the point. Of course, it doesn't really change the end result, but I do think it's a little strange.

For the record, I think that while it's an overstatement to say that Bush lied, being selectively blind with respect to intelligence is still a serious policy error. It's not Bush's personal fault entirely, of course. A large segment of his administration was fixated on Iraq from the beginning. However, when you elect a president, you not only elect that individual, but also (indirectly) the people who he'll be using to fill positions in the executive branch. Thus, while the buck might or might not stop with Bush, I'd rather remove the whole bunch to make sure policy gets done right rather than rely on the good intentions of a single individual.

[SaroDarksbane]

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?10947&OReilly_Factor&O%27Reilly%20vs.%20Moore&acc&Politics&1&ram-300

The video.

Honestly, I'm not sure how any of you can see O'Reilly winning it. Moore gets all his points across and O'Reilly gets nothing across.

Edit: O'Reilly fumbled the ball when he was asked about sacrificing his children to take out of power, he should've said it if was their choice, people CHOOSE to sign up for the military, it would be different had the draft been enlisted.
So then you believe Moore got the upper hand about Preisdent Bush's "lies"? O'Reilly smacked him down.

And when Moore asks O'Reilly what he would tell the parents of the deceased, and O'Reilly says he would tell them they died to bring down a brutal dictator, Moore brings up WMD. What? Whether or not we found WMD has no bearing on whether or not they died to remove Saddam.

Moore gets nothing across beyond "I still think Bush lied despite all the evidence to the contrary. Bush is evil. Watch my movie."

If that is winning a debate . . .

[mepersoner]

I found the point about Bush being misinformed very interesting. You can't blame a guy for listening to the CIA, Russian Intelligence, and British Intelligence. He certainly didn't lie to America like Moore insists. A lie is a false statement deliberately being presented as true...I don't think Bush deliberately lied to America.
Notice you said "deliberately" to clarify the type of lie.

He still lied.

Bush said things that were straight up lies, like they knew exactly where the WMD were, and that they knew for sure there were WMD. He didn't know for sure, and it's obvious they don't know where they're at, or even if they exist at all.

[PyroStock]

The debate swung slightly back in Moore's favor when later Bill inexplicably refused to say that he would've sent his kid to secure Falluja. Why not?

I'm willing to bet Moore had follow up response(s)/question(s) expecting Bill to say 'yes' or 'no'. So rather than Bill give Moore control on where the conversation would lead, Bill through him a curveball. Not a very good curveball, but enough to stump Moore.

And when most people hear the word kid they don't first think of 18+ year old marines. No one says "lets see how many kids voted for Nader this time." So a quick 'yes' or 'no' to "sacrafice kids" could have left a bad first impression on some minds.

Bill could have still answered the initial question better with a more elaborate answer. And perhaps Bill would have maintained his highground, as you put it, even after following Moore's line of questioning & Moore's possible "you kid killer" questions/statements. However, from a debate standpoint getting your opponent flustered and taking away their expectations can give you an edge. Neither looked great, but I agree Moore looked worse.

[mepersoner]

So then you believe Moore got the upper hand about Preisdent Bush's "lies"? O'Reilly smacked him down.

And when Moore asks O'Reilly what he would tell the parents of the deceased, and O'Reilly says he would tell them they died to bring down a brutal dictator, Moore brings up WMD. What? Whether or not we found WMD has no bearing on whether or not they died to remove Saddam.

Moore gets nothing across beyond "I still think Bush lied despite all the evidence to the contrary. Bush is evil. Watch my movie."

If that is winning a debate . . .
Right, but we didn't go to war to take Saddam out of power, we went to war to find the WMD, he has a legitmate point. The basis for our soldiers going to war was a lie, they were lied to about why they were going to war, you're saying that's acceptable?

[SaroDarksbane]

Notice you said "deliberately" to clarify the type of lie.

He still lied.

Lie: "A false statement deliberately presented as being true."

A lie is deliberate, or else it isn't a lie.

Don't make things up, please.

EDIT:


Right, but we didn't go to war to take Saddam out of power, we went to war to find the WMD, he has a legitmate point. The basis for our soldiers going to war was a lie, they were lied to about why they were going to war, you're saying that's acceptable?
So if we would have found WMD, we would have left Saddam in power? And there you go about the "lies" again.

[mepersoner]

Bush said he knew, not he thought. He delivered opinions as facts and he did it on purpose to gain support. He deliberately presetented these things as facts, when they weren't facts, that's a lie.

[Steel_Avatar]

I have to agree. I didn't want to read the whole thing, but I did get the impression that Moore wasn't really holding his own. And Saro is right; Bush may have been misled or been mistaken, but he didn't lie.

[zarikdon]

I'm willing to bet Moore had follow up response(s)/question(s) expecting Bill to say 'yes' or 'no'. So rather than Bill give Moore control on where the conversation would lead, Bill through him a curveball. Not a very good curveball, but enough to stump Moore.

And when most people hear the word kid they don't first think of 18+ year old marines. No one says "lets see how many kids voted for Nader this time." So a quick 'yes' or 'no' to "sacrafice kids" could have left a bad first impression on some minds.

Bill could have still answered the initial question better with a more elaborate answer. And perhaps Bill would have maintained his highground, as you put it, even after following Moore's line of questioning & Moore's possible "you kid killer" questions/statements. However, from a debate standpoint getting your opponent flustered and taking away their expectations can give you an edge. Neither looked great, but I agree Moore looked worse.

I agree; it could've been a curve ball, but he really could've put Moore away with just a slightly longer answer. Oddly enough, Moore seemed to think he had an advantage so he kept repeating the question, while O'Reilly stuck to his short answer. It's like two people talking past each other since they both don't understand the significance of what the other's saying. It's not too surprising I guess. I'm sure the adrenaline was pumping like crazy on both sides.

[mepersoner]

So if we would have found WMD, we would have left Saddam in power? And there you go about the "lies" again.

No, he would've been breaking laws and been taken out of power for it. However, he presented no threat as it was, and therefore we without reason attacked and took him out of power.

[mepersoner]

I have to agree. I didn't want to read the whole thing, but I did get the impression that Moore wasn't really holding his own. And Saro is right; Bush may have been misled or been mistaken, but he didn't lie.
Watch the video so you don't have to read.

Presenting opinions as fact is a lie.

[zarikdon]

I don't know... I mean, if you take Bush in good faith, then he didn't lie. However, the fact remains that the war wasn't an immediate war of necessity as it was originally advertised. Now there are two ways to look at it: either Bush was misled, or he selectively took the evidence that he believed would support his case and ran with it. Being misled isn't a personal crime, but like I said, it doesn't speak well for your administration... and ultimately, a presidential election is as much about electing THE president as well as the people who're going to take up positions in the various Cabinet offices.

On the other hand, having tunnel vision and choosing what to believe and what not to believe can also be done in good faith, but it indicates a personal judgement error. It's not a lie, but it's a still no joke. After all, war is a serious issue... both in terms of potential human losses and national treasure. The significance which you attach to this might depend on your overall opinion of Bush and his administration in general, but either way to deny that it's an issue is a little disingenuous, I think.

[Mongoose88]

Watch the video so you don't have to read.

Presenting opinions as fact is a lie.

Woah woah woah...now you're bending things a little. Presenting opinions as facts is necessarily lying, I don't have to bring up examples as I think this is perfectly obvious...

Let's look at two definitions of the word lie:

to "present false information with the intent of decieving".

Did Bush intend to decieve to America? No, he didn't. So by definition, he is not a liar.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Did Bush deliberately present a false statement as true? No, he did it unintentionally. Once again, by definition, he is not a liar.

[mepersoner]

Actually, he did deliberately present a false statement as true.

Did he deliberately present it as the truth? Yes he did. Was it the truth? No, it was false.

Did he deliberately present a false statement as the truth, yes he did.

If we're going to use a dictionary for definitions, let's use a real one, like webster.

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

I'm pretty sure he did that, try again?

[Mongoose88]

Actually, he did deliberately present a false statement as true.

Did he deliberately present it as the truth? Yes he did. Was it the truth? No, it was false.

Did he deliberately present a false statement as the truth, yes he did.

If we're going to use a dictionary for definitions, let's use a real one, like webster.

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

I'm pretty sure he did that, try again?

Oh dear, I feel like a grammar teacher. Whatever, let's agree to disagree.

[mepersoner]

Edit: That was a really baiting statement I just made and edited out.

[DrunkPotHead]

From the transcript, Bill did a little better than Moore, although neither one was spectacular.

[Steel_Avatar]

Watch the video so you don't have to read.

Presenting opinions as fact is a lie.
How does presenting an opinion as fact fall under the definition of a lie?

PS: Informed opinion from three major intelligence agencies is different from the opinion of Joe Sixpack.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Before reading this post, if you do decide to respond, please do so by SECTION without quoting anything but the headings I have and relevant quotes from what I put, just to keep it shorter and more manageable. I spent a considerable amount of time really reading the transcript and this is what I came up with analysis-wise and score-wise. You are free to disagree, but PLEASE explain why rather than just saying something sucks. Now on to the post...

On Bush Lying:

Moore stated that Bush didn't tell the truth, and that is accurate (as far as we know). Since Bush did say that Saddam had WMD and we haven't found any, what Bush reported wasn't the truth. I think that is clear enough. However, a lie requires someone to tell something they know as false and pass it as the truth. O'Reilly is right, as far as we know, that Bush didn't lie.

Now they banter back and forth about this for a while, with them each stating two different statements as if they are opposites and mutually exclusive. They aren't. While Bush may not have told the truth, that doesn't mean he lied, especially if he didn't know for certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They are arguing about which way to view the hazy grey area that this issue lies in.

The change on this discussion is when Moore states, "It was a lie."

From that point forward, he is directly opposing O'Reilly's statement, and unless Moore has some information proving that Bush lied -- information nobody else has -- then Moore just made a false statement that is not backed up by any proof. In other words, he's doing exactly what he claimed Bush to be doing -- 'not telling the truth.' If we extend that with Moore's logic, then Moore is lying on this point, and he's pretty-much shot himself in the foot on this issue.

O'Reilly 1, Moore 0

On the dead soldiers:

Moore is stating that these soldiers died for something that wasn't there (WMD) and therefore their deaths were for nothing. O'Reilly's point is that despite there being no WMDs, they died to remove a dictator even if that wasn't the original reason they went in. These points, unlike the previous ones, are mutually exclusive. Either they died for nothing, or they died to remove a dictator.

Since Saddam was toppled, and since he was a brutal dictator, I'd say that their deaths enabling the latter to have happened pretty-much seal the deal on that issue.

The reason Moore may seem to have a point here is because of a popular misconception that soldiers need a reason. While I think a good solid reason is a good thing, and don't approve of going to war with Iraq, whether or not there is a solid reason they are sent to a foreign country is irrelevant in their charge of duty. To paraphrase the Last Samurai, "If you want me to kill terrorists, I'll kill terrorists, if you want me to kill Iraqis, I'll kill Iraqis." That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct.

I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think?

The fact is that, while tragic, it is the job of soldiers to do what they're ordered to. The fact is that they were charged with invading and securing Iraq because he had WMDs. The latter half turned out not to be true as far as we know, but that's irrelevant in the charge of the soldiers which was invading Iraq. What they accomplished was the ousting of a dictator, so despite the lack of the justification for the invasion, their lives were not 'for nothing' as the invasion certainly caused something.

O'Reilly 2, Moore 0

On making mistakes:

Moore's point is that these soldiers died for a mistake, and that people feel bad about it. O'Reilly agrees that it was a mistake, and says that there's nothing that can be done with it.

As many times as Moore tries to raise sympathy, O'Reilly sticks to his ideological guns. The fact is that mistakes happen, and mistakes are unintentional. Moore said earlier Bush lied, which is intentional, so he is weakening a claim (perhaps because he realizes that the slip he made earlier shoots himself in the foot). So we can see, first off, that Moore is backtracking from his earlier claims (probably due to lack of support).

O'Reilly makes a VERY Moore-esque statement in this section, stating that "...if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that." This re-states his original point that Bush didn't lie, and really hammers an important point home. Morally, that is in the absolute judgment of right and wrong, he cannot hold you responsible for a mistake, an accident. He, however, doesn't state that the mistake should be forgotten, or that the culprit shouldn't be responsible in other facets.

By making the argument more broad and using more refined language, he manages to make a logically sound statement that makes perfect sense.

For all of Moore's attempts to get O'Reilly to make a mis-step that undercuts his argument about Bush, it fails miserably as O'Reilly remains calm and sticks to his ideological guns, making a logically sound statement defending his point of view while not undercutting his argument by trying to leave out any discussion of other potential culpability the person who made the mistake may be subject to. Had he said, "I can't find you morally responsible, but I would enjoy seeing you thrown in jail and having your license revoked" then Moore could have come back with a statement about how Bush should be impeached and/or voted out of office. He didn't, and so I think O'Reilly handled the set-up perfectly.

O'Reilly 3, Moore 0

On O'Reilly's children and willingness to die in these wars:

Moore tries to get O'Reilly to state whether or not he would send his children off to die in these conflicts. O'Reilly argues that he doesn't have the right to send his children, but would send himself.

Moore is trying to prove that O'Reilly is all talk and no action by asking whether or not he would send his own children off to war in these conflicts. O'Reilly accurately points out that he would sacrifice his life, but that he can't talk for his children. Moore tries to press the same issue several times, but O'Reilly keeps coming up with the same response -- 'I would sacrifice myself, but I can't make a decision for my children.'

I think O'Reilly is very strong on this point because he's right -- he can't speak about whether or not he'd send his children off to war, because it isn't his choice. He does, however, stick to his guns by pointing out that he would be willing to give his OWN life for the conflict. Since one's own life is the highest price you can pay realistically, O'Reilly is making the strongest statement possible without looking like an arse for saying that he'd make decisions for his children (who I presume are legal sovereign adult individuals).

O'Reilly then swaps the question around on Moore, asking Moore if he would give his life for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Moore goes through a huge process of entirely evading the question. He'd give his life to go after Al Qaeda, but he wouldn't attack the Taliban. He doesn't give any answer on how he'd do that, and switches to when it's justified to attack a government. His answer? 'Only if it poses a threat to us.' So O'Reilly brings up Hitler, to which Moore responds Pearl Harbor, and O'Reilly points out '33-'41. Moore claims mistakes were made in the statement, "There’s a lot of things we should have done."

If we should have done something, and we didn't, that would be a mistake. And I don't hear Moore trying to crucify FDR... Therefore he is strengthening O'Reilly's earlier statements about mistakes being made.

But Moore goes further, and states that he would have made sure Hitler never came into power. O'Reilly (correctly) points out that would be pre-emption, the very policy Moore likes to criticize Bush over. Moore is not a fan of any of the cases where the US does covert things in other countries trying to interfere with their government (the whole Nicaragua thing in specific seems to be a favourite), yet he suggests that the same thing should be done in hindsight, oops?

Basically, Moore is using hindsight to support the same policies he speaks out against.

O'Reilly 4, Moore 0

On revolution:

Moore argues that Iraq could have changed regime via revolution, while O'Reilly argues that Moore opposes the ways that America supports revolutions.

Although slightly parallel with the previous line of discussion, I think this merits a separate point. O'Reilly points out that if Moore were president, Saddam would likely still be in power. Moore argues that there's no way to know that, because perhaps revolution would have broken out. They get into a discussion about the history of revolution and how people have successfully risen up against dictatorships throughout the world. O'Reilly points out that Moore opposed the policies of Reagan which helped to supply guns to these countries that revolted.

Moore doesn't respond to that point, and it is dropped, but Moore keeps prodding at the popular revolution concept as a successful catalyst in regime change. I think that Moore has an excellent point on rebellion, but that O'Reilly also has a point that Moore opposes presidents who have supported revolutions in other countries... I think they both have a good point and tie on this segment of the argument.

O'Reilly 5, Moore 1

Conclusion:

So in the end, I really think that O'Reilly's points were a lot stronger logically than Moore's, and that he made far fewer slip-ups on the issues. However, I think that Moore probably had a better command of rhetoric and didn't look that bad despite some of the gaffes he made. The fact is that Moore is great at rhetoric, but his arguments tend to be lacking of a real solid point or punch instead reveling in playful images and political satire of sorts. However, if you really read the transcript, you will realize that Moore's arguments, though maybe more convincing, just aren't logically sound.

People say that O'Reilly isn't that bright? Well, I think the fact that he came up against Moore and managed not to make any serious mistakes logically, or speak himself into a trap says something about his intelligence. Moore is the fiery speaker who relies on emotions to make points, and in some strange cosmic joke, O'Reilly actually became a calm debater concentrating on the facts rather than trying to belittle his opponents.

I think O'Reilly, while being a royal arse, is probably quite intelligent, gauging his tactics according to the person he's debating. Since he can't strong-arm Moore (getting emotional and loud towards Moore is the sort of thing that Moore thrives on and can work off of), he just stuck to the issues and made some dynamite logically sound arguments against Moore's points, and ended up making Moore slip up and contradict himself instead.

Moore, on the other hand, is full of rhetoric and preying on mistakes. I think that Moore was hoping to find the O'Reilly that you usually see on the program berating his interviewees and trying to belittle them, and catch him off-guard with a statement that O'Reilly shouldn't have made. The fact is that while there's plenty to be down on Bush and Iraq about, Moore picks very extreme things that aren't actually provable and changes the argument just enough to make it impossible to disprove (for instance changing 'Bush lied' to 'Bush didn't tell the truth'). This makes him weak if someone just sticks to the issues.

All in all, I think it was a good debate most likely, and I'll try to watch it later to see how they looked and maybe revise this post or create an addendum, but I think that at the end of the day, Moore lost in the real world, and probably won in the eyes of many viewers just because he has a nice style and most people say, "sucks to your logic!" However, I have a feeling that as with most political issues on this forum, people will be divided along ideological lines and likely care very little about the actual logic behind the debate so much as promoting their ideology.

[sonic1234_us]

Well said Fau. You a part of the NFL? (No.. Not football)

I would have posted the video.. but i was afrad of people with 56Ks and them complaining about me not hinking about them so i just posted up the text.

Now for my own opinions.

Bill Just completely and utterly owned Moore in this one. Sorry people, but i treid to see Moore's way and it still didn't work. He tried to bend HISTORY to benifit his side. Not to mention that he stuck with the "Liar bush" thing too long. He lost on that, too.

Bush did not LIE. A lie is something like "It wasn't me mommy" as a single child. With 3 VERY credible (Not sure about the russians though) sources going for him, bush said that he had WMDs. Even the liberals/dems or whatever back in 1998 and 2002 said he had them. And what.. Now Bush is an evil liar because everyone told him some bad information? Yell at the russians, brits or the CIA first, not the deliverer of the information. Its like yelling at the computer screen because you just read that your stocks are down.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I have no idea what the NFL is.

[{KOW}Spazed]

I have no idea what the NFL is.
While it is used for like 10 different organizations. . .I think he means National Forensics Legue


BTW that was an excellent overview.

[zarikdon]

This is how I see the analysis, and for convenience I'll go along with PLF's breakdown of the topics, though I fail to see the point of awarding equal points for each topic (or even points at all), since the importance you attach to each part of the discussion can be fairly subjective. Also, I'll try to avoid "what if" statements when trying to decide who made a better point. I don't think Moore OR O'Reilly replied optimally in most cases... especially Moore. But putting words into their mouths is pointless. I might make a comment about what might have been, however, if I think a particularly obvious point was overlooked.

1) On Bush Lying
Clearly Moore loses big-time here, no argument. He accedes to O'Reilly's assumptions, accepts the definition of the word without question, and then he's doomed. In all fairness, I doubt it would've been likely that Moore would've retracted his statement even he was faced with stronger evidence. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he's staked his credibility on certain assertions, and he can't give them up without getting skewered in the general media. However, he still loses the point without question.

A blindingly obvious response to O'Reilly would've been to question the quality of the CIA/British/Russian intelligence that O'Reilly brings up. There's evidence that the CIA had reservations over several pieces of evidence. I don't know the details of the British or Russian intelligence, but it's within the limits of reason to expect that you should value your own government's intelligence more than a foreign power's. If Bush and/or his administration officials picked and chose which pieces of information were credible and which weren't, and it turned out that they were wrong, does that mean they lied? In the absence of intent to deceive, no. However, systematically choosing information in favor of an outcome you're biased towards is a PREVENTABLE policy flaw. If he had really wanted to stretch the point, he could've linked the LACK of pointing out issues of intelligence integrity to the public as being akin to lying. (In a battle of semantics in a debate, neither side wins.) If O'Reilly responds that the president, if he's trying to convince the nation to do something, isn't going to bring up these reservations, then Moore could credibly respond that if there were reservations, then the war should've been sold differently.

Anyway, the point is that, in a debate, attack the opponents assumptions, or point out hidden assumptions. Moore doesn't do this, and so he loses a major point. I spend a long time on this because this issue gets brought up again and again later, only to keep biting him in the ***.

2) Dead Soldiers
Moore loses the discussion again because he lets O'Reilly make him take an undefendable position. In any policy decision, if you want to be strict about it, a sacrifice is never made "for nothing." There's always a tradeoff. You could even argue that in Somalia, where we withdrew prematurely, soldiers didn't die "for nothing," because there was good humanitarian work done in the beginning. When we talk about Iraq, of course those troops didn't die "for nothing." It would have to be the most unimaginably worst policy in the world for 900 people to die without any benefit at all. The relevant question is whether or not the tradeoff in soldiers' lives matches the benefits gained. Moore never brings it up. Big mistake. And speaking of mistakes...

3) What Mistakes?
The key point that everything hinges on here is O'Reilly's statement that if you make an unintentional mistake, you can not be held morally responsible for it. Moore doesn't challenge it, but in fact this principle is violated quite often. We have laws against it, for example: i.e., criminal negligence. Even if you make an error in good faith, there's often a standard we hold people to regarding what's a reasonable error and what's not. Admittedly, it's a somewhat subjective rule, but the fact remans that it's employed in our society. Should Bush (or his advisors) have known better given the circumstances? Unfortunately, we don't know what either side has to say about the issue because it's never brought up. So, does O'Reilly win this part of the debate or not? I would say yes, because while his assumption is flawed, Moore doesn't question it. However, if an external viewer were to consider it, I think they wouldn't be entirely satisfied with the outcome.

4) God Help the Children
This is a contentious point for me, because it seems that other people (PLF and Saro, for example) interpreted the intent of the discussion differently than I did. On one hand (to take the PLF view), the emphasis is on the action of whether a parent would SEND their kid to die. There's no argument against the fact that no parent has the authority (legal or moral) to press their kid into the military, so Moore would be dead in the water here. However, the way I interpreted it was that Moore was asking O'Reilly whether he would accept the position of a parent who lost their kid in Iraq. To see where I'm coming from, consider that Moore has been harping on the emotional aspect of the war. The tragedy, as he's emphasizing it, is on those poor families who've lost their children. It seems natural to me that what Moore is asking is: "would you wish that upon yourself." Here, the issue is no longer the authority of the parent, but how they would accept loss. I think that this interpretation is more reasonable because it seems unlikely that Moore (even given his poor performance so far) would go for the PLF view, which has such an obvious counterargument. However, in favor of the PLF view, we do have a segment from Fahrenheit 9/11 where he goes around asking Congressmen to sign their kids up to go to Iraq... and that's somewhat convincing evidence right there. I can't really judge which possibility is more plausible, though the whole issue seems to be more an emotional appeal than anything else.

5) Vive le Revolucion!
This topic gets very little airtime, and that's probably not surprising since it's more or less an offshoot of the previous topic. The debate is on when preemption should be considered, and whether or not a strict policy one way or the other will be beneficial to the nation. I won't assign a clear winner either way, because they didn't spend much time discussing it, and in addition they jumped all over the place without going into detail. O'Reilly raises the point that it's unlikely that, had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would've been overthrown by this point in time. (Duh.) However, Moore suggests that helping popular revolts is a viable alternative to preemption. Unfortunately, he doesn't give any specifics as to what he'd do, nor does he distinguish this hypothetical plan from preemption. If Moore is saying to let governments revolt on their own with no outside prodding, I think that's pretty disingenuous. However, would he perhaps be willing to accept economic sanctions? What about UN censure? What about the cutting of diplomatic ties? What about sending peacekeeping forces under NATO or the UN? In the absence of specifics, I have to find Moore's argument fairly weak. Historically, the US has always instigated regime change by applying outside pressure in a variety of ways, and we have data on the results of those decisions. Hence, the burden remains on Moore to provide details on what he would do differently and on what he projects would happen.

Summary)
Moore failed to make his points, so clearly O'Reilly is going to walk away the winner here. The most fatal mistake that I think he made was that he failed to understand the basic principles behind what O'Reilly's arguments. If he attacked the foundations of his arguments, then we could've had some good discussion. Instead, he resigns position after position, or qualifies them in ways that don't help. This lack of organization in thought really shows as well. You can tell that he's not as coherent as O'Reilly and he doesn't know precisely where to go after each point. He's looking for openings of opportunity, not flaws of logic.

I suppose Moore doesn't have as much experience in these sorts of discussions as O'Reilly, but you'd think that he would've prepared a little more. Instead, you could probably say that one person going into the debate was a little overconfident... and it probably wasn't O'Reilly.

edited for clarity

[{KOW}Spazed]

4) God Help the Children
*snip* It seems natural to me that what Moore is asking is: "would you wish that upon yourself." Here, the issue is no longer the authority of the parent, but how they would accept loss. I think that this interpretation is more reasonable because it seems unlikely that Moore (even given his poor performance so far) would go for the PLF view, which has such an obvious counterargument. However, in favor of the PLF view, we do have a segment from Fahrenheit 9/11 where he goes around asking Congressmen to sign their kids up to go to Iraq... and that's somewhat convincing evidence right there. I can't really judge which possibility is more plausible, though the whole issue seems to be more an emotional appeal than anything else.



If that is what Moore was asking, why didn't he just say it. I am not big either way on the political spectrum, but I wills say Moore phrases things so he can get out of any holes he digs himself into. O'Reilly knows this and used it to crush Moore here. He asked the question that way on purpose, incase he messed up.

As for him asking Congressmen to sign their kids up, they could think the exact same way O'Reilly does, it isn't their choice. Some may have even said it and Moore could have edited it all out.



To me Moore is nothing special, he just thinks about how he can get himself out of things before he talks. O'Reilly(who I have listened to for a while) uses logic to answer questions. The reason people rarely beat O'Reilly in a debate is they aren't using the same logic. Most of the time they just spew opinions about a subject they have read(<- AOL Keyword) about. The only tiff I have with O'Reilly is he over simplifies some subjects, he doesn't do it a lot, but he does it from time to time.

[Pierrot le Fou]

This is how I see the analysis, and for convenience I'll go along with PLF's breakdown of the topics, though I fail to see the point of awarding equal points for each topic (or even points at all), since the importance you attach to each part of the discussion can be fairly subjective.

<snip>

4) God Help the Children
This is a contentious point for me, because it seems that other people (PLF and Saro, for example) interpreted the intent of the discussion differently than I did. On one hand (to take the PLF view), the emphasis is on the action of whether a parent would SEND their kid to die. There's no argument against the fact that no parent has the authority (legal or moral) to press their kid into the military, so Moore would be dead in the water here. However, the way I interpreted it was that Moore was asking O'Reilly whether he would accept the position of a parent who lost their kid in Iraq. To see where I'm coming from, consider that Moore has been harping on the emotional aspect of the war. The tragedy, as he's emphasizing it, is on those poor families who've lost their children. It seems natural to me that what Moore is asking is: "would you wish that upon yourself." Here, the issue is no longer the authority of the parent, but how they would accept loss. I think that this interpretation is more reasonable because it seems unlikely that Moore (even given his poor performance so far) would go for the PLF view, which has such an obvious counterargument. However, in favor of the PLF view, we do have a segment from Fahrenheit 9/11 where he goes around asking Congressmen to sign their kids up to go to Iraq... and that's somewhat convincing evidence right there. I can't really judge which possibility is more plausible, though the whole issue seems to be more an emotional appeal than anything else.

Okay, to point one, I was trying to divvy up the discussion according to the questions they asked as per the rules that were laid out. Hence awarding a 'point' for who won each question they were allowed to ask. Admittedly, they get confused and ask multiple questions in the middle, but I tried to do it as best I could going by the rules THEY set, rather than my subjective judgment.

On the second point, look at the bolded portion of your post. He isn't asking the kids whether they'd go, he's asking the parents to sign their kids up. That to me is far closer to my point than to your of dealing with the loss. No matter how he frames it, the catch he gives is asking a parent to make a decision for their children, not whether or not they deal with the choice that their children make.

I think that it makes good film when you get these horrified and annoyed looks from Congressmen, but it makes very poor debate material because of that flaw. As with much of moore, I believe it's all flash, little substance.

Just wanted to clarify those two things.

[mepersoner]

I saw things a little differently. Might be because I'm more middle of the line..


On Bush Lying:


I think they're using different definitions of the word lying. Was Bush being purposely deceitful? No. Was he lying? Depends on your definition. Moore has a fine argument for one definition, O'Reilly for the other, no one wins this argument, they needed to define what a lie was before railing off about if Bush lied or not. They're both right, and both wrong.


On the dead soldiers:

I think Moore's point her is that the soldiers died for a false cause. Regardless of there job, regardless of the good done, in the end their original cause was false. The argument to the parent of a dead child that "well, what we went in for wasn't really there, we were wrong and we sent soldiers to their death, but we did something else that was great while we were at it!" doesn't really hold up. Sending people to kill other people and risk being killed and you better have a good INITIAL reason, and it better be the truth.

As for soldiers have to do what they're told to do, I refer you to the jails. That is incorrect, soldiers ARE supposed to question things or things like that happen.

Moore twists the argument around in his favor, saying the goal of the war was to find the WMD and there was none, so the war was meaningless. O'Reilly points out that Saddam was taken out of power, I think O'Reilly makes a good point.


On O'Reilly's children and willingness to die in these wars:

I think all of you missed the point, but possibly Moore was being too vague. I thought Moore was asking if O'Reilly would send his children because Bush is sending OTHER PEOPLE'S children. If O'Reilly wouldn't send his own children, he shouldn't be sending other people's children, and neither should Bush unless he was willing to do the same.

I think O'Reilly really fumbled the ball here, he could've argued so many great points and didn't, instead stuck to "I'd go myself".


On making mistakes:

Moore gives an example of how one should be held morally responsible for mistakes.

However, O'Reilly brings up Hitler and gets Moore to say he'd launch a preemptive strike, pulling it out at the end and showing that going into the war now was the right thing to do and not a mistake.

On revolution:


Neither of them argue this well. Moore says that revolution is the key, but doesn't make statements that make it clear if he would help to start that revolution. O'Reilly doesn't points out the Cold War, neither of them have proof to back their claim of "yes it did" and "no it didn't". They both win/lose.

[Steel_Avatar]

On the soldiers: Bush didn't force those people to sign their children up.

Edit: What is your definition of lying, and may I remind you that just because you have a certain definition of lying doesn't mean that it is genuine.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I think they're using different definitions of the word lying. Was Bush being purposely deceitful? No. Was he lying? Depends on your definition. Moore has a fine argument for one definition, O'Reilly for the other, no one wins this argument, they needed to define what a lie was before railing off about if Bush lied or not. They're both right, and both wrong.

O'Reilly was arguing about lying. Moore was arguing about not telling the truth. They are different terms and different phrases that, as I explained, are NOT mutually exclusive. Moore lost in the end because he stated that Bush lied with no proof and eliminated any view that he was correct by falling into the same trap he accuses Bush of.


I think Moore's point her is that the soldiers died for a false cause. Regardless of there job, regardless of the good done, in the end their original cause was false. The argument to the parent of a dead child that "well, what we went in for wasn't really there, we were wrong and we sent soldiers to their death, but we did something else that was great while we were at it!" doesn't really hold up. Sending people to kill other people and risk being killed and you better have a good INITIAL reason, and it better be the truth.

As for soldiers have to do what they're told to do, I refer you to the jails. That is incorrect, soldiers ARE supposed to question things or things like that happen.

Moore twists the argument around in his favor, saying the goal of the war was to find the WMD and there was none, so the war was meaningless. O'Reilly points out that Saddam was taken out of power, I think O'Reilly makes a good point.

What Moore SAID has nothing to do with what you THINK he said. Moore asks what they died for, and when O'Reilly responds that they died removing a dictator from power, that is FACT, and TRUTH. Just because the REASON was different from the REALITY doesn't change the REALITY. The soldiers died doing their duty, which was to invade Iraq, not to find WMDs. They succeed in their duty and some died doing it. Whether or not there were WMDs cannot change that fact.

Furthermore, I specifically stated in my post "That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct."

I followed that up with "I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think?"

I believe that pretty-much takes care of this point.


I think all of you missed the point, but possibly Moore was being too vague. I thought Moore was asking if O'Reilly would send his children because Bush is sending OTHER PEOPLE'S children. If O'Reilly wouldn't send his own children, he shouldn't be sending other people's children, and neither should Bush unless he was willing to do the same.

I think O'Reilly really fumbled the ball here, he could've argued so many great points and didn't, instead stuck to "I'd go myself".

Bush is sending people who volunteered for the armed forces. He has not enacted the draft, nor does he have the power to do that without the support of the legislative branch. There is not a single American soldier in Iraq there who did not sign a form, after having the rules explained to them, stating that this is the path they've decided to take. There is not a single American soldier in Iraq who didn't have the option of a court martial and jail time for desertion if they were that opposed to it. They knew the risks and the consequences. They were not sent involuntarily.

Just as Bush, or any other president, cannot send other people's children to die unless they've signed up, O'Reilly cannot make the decision to send his, or anyone else's children to war.

He argued the only point left open to him -- he would sacrifice his life for the goals that he believes in.


Moore gives an example of how one should be held morally responsible for mistakes.

However, O'Reilly brings up Hitler and gets Moore to say he'd launch a preemptive strike, pulling it out at the end and showing that going into the war now was the right thing to do and not a mistake.

This summary is very contrary to what happened by either person. Moore tried to goad O'Reilly into opening up on Moore to prove that deaths by mistakes aren't okay, and that Bush was wrong even if he didn't lie and it was just a mistake. O'Reilly didn't take the bait. It's that simple.


Neither of them argue this well. Moore says that revolution is the key, but doesn't make statements that make it clear if he would help to start that revolution. O'Reilly doesn't points out the Cold War, neither of them have proof to back their claim of "yes it did" and "no it didn't". They both win/lose.

I stated that they both sucked up this point equally. And it didn't get into any sort of substantive debate because whenever O'Reilly pushed, Moore just kept backtracking to an earlier historical point where there was a mistake. The only reason I called it equal was because O'Reilly didn't even bother to argue against Moore's comparison with the American revolution, I'd guess out of frustration.


I saw things a little differently. Might be because I'm more middle of the line..

I want to know exactly where I wasn't middle of the line, seeing as how I looked at the things objectively on the basis of what they said, rather than bringing any sort of political beliefs into it. I explained earlier that I dislike them both. O'Reilly made the better arguments because he had better logic. It's that simple. Has very little to do with my political beliefs as I think the war was a stupid idea, a huge mistake, and shouldn't have happened.

What exactly makes you middle of the road anyway? Are you really the supreme arbiter of objectivity given your tendency to say 'I think' etc.?

[mepersoner]

O'Reilly was arguing about lying. Moore was arguing about not telling the truth. They are different terms and different phrases that, as I explained, are NOT mutually exclusive. Moore lost in the end because he stated that Bush lied with no proof and eliminated any view that he was correct by falling into the same trap he accuses Bush of.
Moore was arguing that by telling Americans something that was not true, Bush was lying. As already discussed, it depends on the definition of the term "lie". He stated Bush lied by not telling the truth, seeing as how he's using them synonymously, Bush DID lie by not telling the truth. However, O'Reilly is arguing Bush didn't lie, and he means that Bush did not not tell the truth in an attempt to deceive.


What Moore SAID has nothing to do with what you THINK he said. Moore asks what they died for, and when O'Reilly responds that they died removing a dictator from power, that is FACT, and TRUTH. Just because the REASON was different from the REALITY doesn't change the REALITY. The soldiers died doing their duty, which was to invade Iraq, not to find WMDs. They succeed in their duty and some died doing it. Whether or not there were WMDs cannot change that fact.

Furthermore, I specifically stated in my post "That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct."

I followed that up with "I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think?"

I believe that pretty-much takes care of this point.
You're missing the point of the argument, which is the soldiers were sent without reason to war in Iraq.


Bush is sending people who volunteered for the armed forces. He has not enacted the draft, nor does he have the power to do that without the support of the legislative branch. There is not a single American soldier in Iraq there who did not sign a form, after having the rules explained to them, stating that this is the path they've decided to take. There is not a single American soldier in Iraq who didn't have the option of a court martial and jail time for desertion if they were that opposed to it. They knew the risks and the consequences. They were not sent involuntarily.

Just as Bush, or any other president, cannot send other people's children to die unless they've signed up, O'Reilly cannot make the decision to send his, or anyone else's children to war.

He argued the only point left open to him -- he would sacrifice his life for the goals that he believes in.
Moore never says they aren't there by choice. He's asking O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to take a dictator out of power. There is no specification whether or not the children are willing participants.


This summary is very contrary to what happened by either person. Moore tried to goad O'Reilly into opening up on Moore to prove that deaths by mistakes aren't okay, and that Bush was wrong even if he didn't lie and it was just a mistake. O'Reilly didn't take the bait. It's that simple.
You are correct.


I stated that they both sucked up this point equally. And it didn't get into any sort of substantive debate because whenever O'Reilly pushed, Moore just kept backtracking to an earlier historical point where there was a mistake. The only reason I called it equal was because O'Reilly didn't even bother to argue against Moore's comparison with the American revolution, I'd guess out of frustration.
Agreed.


I want to know exactly where I wasn't middle of the line, seeing as how I looked at the things objectively on the basis of what they said, rather than bringing any sort of political beliefs into it. I explained earlier that I dislike them both. O'Reilly made the better arguments because he had better logic. It's that simple. Has very little to do with my political beliefs as I think the war was a stupid idea, a huge mistake, and shouldn't have happened.
No, it still looks at how you examine the points made. They both had decent arguments and logic depending on where you're coming from.


What exactly makes you middle of the road anyway? Are you really the supreme arbiter of objectivity given your tendency to say 'I think' etc.?
Yes.

Middle of the road doesn't mean one doesn't think. Contrary, it means they probably think more.

[mepersoner]

On the soldiers: Bush didn't force those people to sign their children up.

Edit: What is your definition of lying, and may I remind you that just because you have a certain definition of lying doesn't mean that it is genuine.We already went through this, someone posted definitions from dictionary.com:


A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
And I posted some from webster.com

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression


According to second defintion according to Webster, Bush lied. He created a false and misleading impression.

Edit: As I said, both men were correct with their definition of lie, and incorrect with the other's definition.

[Pain Probe]

Fact is we will never know if Bush "knowingly lied" about WMD in Iraq.

I think Moore cuts to the heart of the stink when he asks would you give up your child for this...

At the time the pitch was made we were told Iraq has the means to rain WMD on us. As survival is still a pretty strong motivator for many of us, we bought it (myself included). Now we find that oops, the intelligence was wrong, sorry folks! Yes Tenent is gone and he needed to go but I don't think that's going far enough

We invaded and conquered a sovereign nation (I don't give a rats *** about Saddam being a bad guy, there are plenty of them to go arounf). A lot of people have died and will die as a result and that is an utterly unforgivable error for an administration.

The thing that really kills me is the back drop of North Korea outwardly threatening us with nuclear destruction during all this. How does pre-emption work under that scenario?

[Daedric]

Before reading this post, if you do decide to respond, please do so by SECTION without quoting anything but the headings I have and relevant quotes from what I put, just to keep it shorter and more manageable. I spent a considerable amount of time really reading the transcript and this is what I came up with analysis-wise and score-wise. You are free to disagree, but PLEASE explain why rather than just saying something sucks. Now on to the post...

PLF, I don't believe anyone could have done a better job analyzing this debate. Well done. :thumbsup: I just want to add one thing:

On the dead soldiers:

Michael Moore claims that Bush sent people's children off to die, and that it would be him entirely responsible for their deaths. This is not true. Bush did not draft these soldiers, and therefore weren't brought into the military against their will. Men and women in the army know that there is always a risk of having to go somewhere to fight, especially being in the U.S. Only the person him/herself has the choice to join currently.

[zarikdon]

On the second point, look at the bolded portion of your post. He isn't asking the kids whether they'd go, he's asking the parents to sign their kids up. That to me is far closer to my point than to your of dealing with the loss. No matter how he frames it, the catch he gives is asking a parent to make a decision for their children, not whether or not they deal with the choice that their children make.

Oh absolutely. The entire reason I brought up that segment from the movie was because it lends weight to the suggestion that he was implying your interpretation instead of mine. I thought that's what I said in my post. Sorry if it wasn't clear. It's just that I've heard so many criticisms of that segment (mainly along your lines) in various news outlets that I would've thought that Moore wouldn't rely on it anymore. A naive assumption, it would seem.

[Plum]

If you guys want a proper debate, don't look to political entertainers. That's what Moore and O'Reilly are. They aren't analysts, they aren't investigators, they aren't politicians. I don't feel the need to write an entire dissertation about a bunch of rehashed single sentence statements from two guys who have spent their careers entertaining very specific audiences.

I'd say O'Reilly came out "on top" simply because he seemed to be calmer and was more clear in his statements. And that's what should have been expected. Moore has always been awful on television in my opinion, whereas O'Reilly's been making a living on it. O'Reilly simply appeared better when compared to Moore, in a sort of JFK v. Nixon type of way, and I guess that makes him the winner.

Overall, that was a brilliant segment. I wasn't impressed, but I definitely was entertained.

[Dirty_Zulu]

On the subject of sending childen to war:

I don't get why Moore doesn't get what NO means.

If they're between 1 day old to 17 year and 364 days. NO.

If they're 18 and above. It's their decision to join the military. If you get employed by a company, you do what your boss assign you to do.

I think OReilly didn't push the fatty hard enough. Any other conservative talk show host would've done a better.

[IDupedInMyPants]

On Bush lying:

This round was characterized by a load of ineffectual swinging with very few punches landed, perhaps each fighter's attempt to feel the other out. They both made sound arguments, but weren't actually arguing with each other since no definition of "lie" was forwarded or agreed to.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives

The majority of definitions support Moore's argument, but within the context of the debate at hand, neither person did enough to carry the round. Draw. One foul for each contestant for failing to set up necessary premises for their conclusions.

Moore: 9 O'Reilly: 9

On dead soldiers:

Moore's point is that the soldiers were sent in under false pretenses and died for a false cause. They may have done some good along the way (Moore does not deny this), but his point is very much true whether the cause was intentionally false or not, whether good was incidently accomplished or not.

Soldiers are not charged with following all orders and if I'm not mistaken are required to disobey orders which they feel are wrong. Soldiers are charged with defending our nation, and in this case, that's not what they were used for. Moore's round.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 9
Total: 19-18

On mistakes:

Moore doesn't backtrack from his earlier claims that Bush lied, he's simply putting his questions in O'Reilly's own terms in an attempt to illustrate why he thinks Bush is responsible for the soldiers. He says that "Sorry, we made a mistake" isn't good enough for the parents of the fallen soldiers and scores a knockdown by coaxing an agreement out of O'Reilly, which inadvertantly reveals O'Reilly's tacit belief that there is at least some degree of administration responsibility for the soldiers and their families.

O'Reilly, to his credit, avoids the knockout punch by skillfully refusing to affirm that mistake-makers are morally responsible for the consequences of their mistake. While this is debatable, it isn't enough to carry the round and is not developed enough to counter Moore's point because it focuses on drunk driving rather than on ordering soldiers to war for reasons that turn out to be false.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 8
Totals: 29-26

On the children:

A lot of you are mis-scoring this round because you don't seem to grasp the point behind it. Moore isn't saying politicians should have final say over every action their child makes, nor is he saying we should be sending infants into combat. With this point and the similar segment on F9/11 he's forcing the politicians to ask themselves if Iraq would be worth it if it was their own family making the sacrifice that they ask of other families. He's driving the point home that we have an obligation not to send these soldiers into harm's way unless it's necessary. In fact I think I'm quoting the movie directly in saying that. Moore, however, does fail to make this point clear within the context of this debate and receives one foul.

O'Reilly's only defense is answering a question that wasn't asked and refusing to think about making that sacrifice, which essentially is finding a corner and covering up while you wait for the bell. He hears the ten second warning hammered out and attempts to come out with a counter and late-round flurry by turning the question back on Moore, but Moore gives an equally evasive answer with an extra jab thrown in. He'd sacrifice himself to track down the people responsible for attacking us, rather than the people who posed no threat to us. Not an overly decisive round, but Moore's nonetheless.

Moore: 9 O'Reilly: 8
Totals: 38-34

On revolution:

Moore's point is two-fold: revolution should be the catalyst for regime change, and democracy can't be delivered through the barrel of a gun. O'Reilly counters that revolution would not be possible in Iraq, but I see this defense as being feeble with the ready availability of automatic weapons throughout the entire region and the widely touted porous borders of the Arab world.

O'Reilly attempts to score with the fact that Moore opposes policies which would allow greater weapons access to such rebels, but in reality he's only committing a logical fallacy. Hypocrisy alone does not make one's current point incorrect. Moore's round.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 9

Moore's fight by judge's decision, 48-43.

[Issw18o]

I wanna see Micheal Savage debate Moore.

[Mongoose88]

I wanna see Micheal Savage debate Moore.

HAHAAA. That will never happen because:

1)Savage will rip Moore to shreds.

2)Savage will get pissed off and say something like "go to hell and die you fat pig", causing him to get fired. Again.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Oy, mepersoner, you aren't reading what Moore actually wrote. You can argue about what you think he meant, but that's a subjective interpretation rather than objective analysis, and regardless of where you think your political beliefs lie, it is NOT an objective stance you're taking.

I'll get back to Duped's post when I have time.

[IDupedInMyPants]

I hope the boxing system isn't too confusing. I kinda meant for it to be at least a little entertaining and at the same time a more accurate reflection of how close I think the exchange ended up being.

Edit: I also want to add that the idea of the inviability of Iraqi revolution is further weakened by the effectiveness the current insurgency is having against the militaries of the world which decimated Iraq's military. Some of this force is external of course, but they're using the same weapons and tactics an internal rebellion would have and Iraq's previous army was much more poorly equipped than the ones the insurgency is fighting.

[mepersoner]

Oy, mepersoner, you aren't reading what Moore actually wrote. You can argue about what you think he meant, but that's a subjective interpretation rather than objective analysis, and regardless of where you think your political beliefs lie, it is NOT an objective stance you're taking.

I'll get back to Duped's post when I have time.You're right, I'm watching him say it and listening.

In my last response to you I didn't argue what I thought he meant, I argued what he said and what he did mean.

[{KOW}Spazed]

You're right, I'm watching him say it and listening.

In my last response to you I didn't argue what I thought he meant, I argued what he said and what he did mean.
That is just it, what he said and what he meant are two entirely different things at certain points. If you watch Moore he does things like that a lot, just incase he makes a goof he can call "Well, what I really meant was. . .blah blah blah."

Mores said, "Would you send your own kids to war?" while he might have meant "Are you willing to take the burden of your child dieing in a war?" He could have meant exactly what he said, or he could have meant the second sentence. To go objectivly you have to go by the first one. You are not.

[mepersoner]

I'm sorry, in my response of:


Moore never says they aren't there by choice. He's asking O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to take a dictator out of power. There is no specification whether or not the children are willing participants.

Am I not being objective? It isn't objective to assume that the child are or aren't willing participants, the point shouldn't even be considered. The point should be looked as "would you send your kid to war" and he asks if O'Reilly would send someone else's kid to war. He also states that's what Bush is doing, sending kids to war. I'm missing how I'm the one who isn't being objective here.

[Steel_Avatar]

If you were being objective, you'd realise that Moore was presenting O'Reilly with a loaded question (the logical fallacy). "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a great example of this.

Had O'Reilly said no, Moore would have painted him as the stereotypical selfish evil conservative, or whatever. But O'Reilly could not have said yes. O'Reilly doesn't have any control over his presumably grown children. One cannot force ones offspring into military service, as you well know.

IF you were being objective, you would have noticed this.

[{KOW}Spazed]

I'm sorry, in my response of:



Am I not being objective? It isn't objective to assume that the child are or aren't willing participants, the point shouldn't even be considered. The point should be looked as "would you send your kid to war" and he asks if O'Reilly would send someone else's kid to war. He also states that's what Bush is doing, sending kids to war. I'm missing how I'm the one who isn't being objective here.
It doesn't matter if the peopple over there want to be or not. They weren't drafted. They sign up of their own free will, knowing that they could be sent to a war, even one they disagreed with.

Now, when you start talking about people who haven't signed up of their own free will, then you can bring in the "do they want to be there" question.

[IDupedInMyPants]

I think it's a given that Moore doesn't want people to be rounded up and illegally sent to Iraq to fight. Why is there any debate about this whatsoever? If politicians are unwilling to see their own die for a cause, they should be unwilling to see others die for that cause. It may not be much of a point but it's far from a difficult one to understand.

[Steel_Avatar]

Politicians shouldn't be asked to speak for legal adults whom they have no control over. They should, however, be permitted to issue orders to a volunteer army.

[{KOW}Spazed]

I think it's a given that Moore doesn't want people to be rounded up and illegally sent to Iraq to fight. Why is there any debate about this whatsoever? If politicians are unwilling to see their own die for a cause, they should be unwilling to see others die for that cause. It may not be much of a point but it's far from a difficult one to understand.
No one is getting rounded up and illegally sent to Iraq. When you sign up for military service, you sign your life to the government. And because no one is over there because of a draft, they all signed up willingly(<- AOL Keyword).

Moore didn't ask, "Do you support the draft knowing your kids could be sent to war?" He asked if O'Reilly would sign his kids up to go. Because O'Reilly is a reasonalbe man he said that it is not his place to decide that fo rhis kids.

So what you just said really has nothing to do with this thread. If the draft was in action then with a little re-wording it could, but not now.

[mepersoner]

Right, they signed up their own free will, they CHOSE that. Bush sent them, they didn't choose that, it just comes with choosing to be in the forces.

Moore asked if O'Reilly would send his own children to die to remove a dictator from power. He paralells it to Bush sending the kids of the military in, which he says Bush is sending the kids to war. Now, arguing that they volunteered you would then be forced to assume they also volunteered and it is up to the parent, like it is the president, to send them.

You can't argue "the parent doesn't have the right" because Moore is asking if O'Reilly would send his child, or someone else's child, to war because Bush is sending kids to war. Rights play no part in this, and if you get into that, you wouldn't assume the parents DIDN'T have the right, you'd have to operate under the assumption that they, like the president, DID have the right and that the kid did volunteer, not that the parents didn't have the right, because then the argument isn't operating on the same standards.

[Steel_Avatar]

Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand your argument here.

[Daedric]

I wanna see Micheal Savage debate Moore.

I second that! Savage would hold nothing back against Moore's Red-Diaper-Doper-Baby ***. :lol: Go savage nation.

[Issw18o]

HAHAAA. That will never happen because:

1)Savage will rip Moore to shreds.

2)Savage will get pissed off and say something like "go to hell and die you fat pig", causing him to get fired. Again.

ya i know, what would be better is Savages assistance that fills in for him when he cant do his show, tha guy is awsome.

[Daedric]

ya i know, what would be better is Savages assistance that fills in for him when he cant do his show, tha guy is awsome.

I guess it would be fun to see Sean Hannity or Michael Medved with him as well lol.

[{KOW}Spazed]

Then Moore is an idiot, because that is a stupid parallel.

Bush sends volunteers to war. They swore an oath to serve. Why are we forced to assume that 'they' volunteered also? Because it lets you prop up a piss-poor argument?

So in other words, we have to discard a valid counter argument because it otherwise makes Moore look stupid?
Exactly.


Moore didn't say, "Would you send your kids if they willingly signed up for military service?" he said, "Would you send your kids?"

No where does he imply that they are also signed up for military duty. Like I said, the people over there choose to sign up, when they did that they gave away the right to say "I don't want to go to war." If they don't want to fight, too bad. Life is not always fun. They took a gamble and lost this time. Why this seems so hard for you to understand is beyond me. When you sign up they tell you that if war breaks out you might be called apon to act and you will have to go or face jail time. Yet, people still sign up even after hearing this fact. Moore does a good job asking questions like this, he makes you think exactly what he wants without actually saying anything relevent. This is one reason he is such a great spin-artist. He knows how to use language to bend reality and make people jump to conclusions. You are assuming he meant that O'Reilly's kids were signed up too, he didn't say that and yet you thought exactly what he wanted you to think.

I will write O'Reilly an e-mail if you want asking him the correct question. It will be simple and to the point. "If your kids were in the military under their own free will, would you send them to Iraq if you were the President of the United States of America?"

Moore did what he does best, he tricked you into thinking something other than what he said.

[Steel_Avatar]

To clarify, I edited that out because I wanted mepersoner to explain more clearly what his argument was. I had a bit of trouble following it.

[{KOW}Spazed]

To clarify, I edited that out because I wanted mepersoner to explain more clearly what his argument was. I had a bit of trouble following it.
I think it fits, although I too am having a little trouble. If you want me to edit just say so.

[IDupedInMyPants]

I don't know how much more clearly I can make it; Moore realizes that no parent can sign their children up for military service in Iraq. In saying "Moore is wrong because these examples aren't the same, the army guys VOLUNTEERED" you're really saying "Moore doesn't realize that parents cannot send their children into military service" which is idiotic. I don't see how an objective observer can claim that givens such as the public knowledge that you can't be forced into the military should be disqualified. You don't have to state or imply givens, they're given.

Moore worded a question poorly in a debate he most likely didn't seriously prepare for, whoop-de-doo. You're making a serious effort at being obtuse if you think Moore is asking politicians or O'Reilly to force their offspring into military service.

[SaroDarksbane]

You don't have to state or imply givens, they're given.
Normally, I'd agree with you on this point, but this is Moore we're talking about. He makes a living off having people assume things about what he says and means, and then subsequently making fools out of them.

[Steel_Avatar]

I don't know how much more clearly I can make it; Moore realizes that no parent can sign their children up for military service in Iraq. In saying "Moore is wrong because these examples aren't the same, the army guys VOLUNTEERED" you're really saying "Moore doesn't realize that parents cannot send their children into military service" which is idiotic. I don't see how an objective observer can claim that givens such as the public knowledge that you can't be forced into the military should be disqualified. You don't have to state or imply givens, they're given.

Moore worded a question poorly in a debate he most likely didn't seriously prepare for, whoop-de-doo. You're making a serious effort at being obtuse if you think Moore is asking politicians or O'Reilly to force their offspring into military service.
Duped, Moore made the exact same argument in a movie that grossed over 100 million. You can't really say he messed up on this one.

[Pierrot le Fou]

On Bush lying:

This round was characterized by a load of ineffectual swinging with very few punches landed, perhaps each fighter's attempt to feel the other out. They both made sound arguments, but weren't actually arguing with each other since no definition of "lie" was forwarded or agreed to.

From Merriam-Webster:

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives

The majority of definitions support Moore's argument, but within the context of the debate at hand, neither person did enough to carry the round. Draw. One foul for each contestant for failing to set up necessary premises for their conclusions.

Moore: 9 O'Reilly: 9

My take:

The definitions of lying in this context, I think, are pretty clear. Moore does not mask the idea that Bush is intentionally doing these horrible things. Later in the debate he states that Bush is sending children off to die, as if he has the power to make them enlist. That sounds like intention to me, not chance. He further strengthens that line of argumentation on the reasons they were sent, acting as if Bush's stated reasons, Bush's intentions, are paramount in regards to responsibility. In short, Moore is blaming Bush for this.

Now were we to take the weaker definition, of a 'lie' being a non-truth told no matter whether or not it was intentionally false, and Moore held this definition, why is he so adamant in sticking to the phrasing "he didn't tell the truth" rather than simply stating "he lied?" Because it's a MUCH stronger statement to say he lied, and Moore certainly likes making strong statements, so if that was his perceived definition, why wouldn't he stick to it and argue it rather than trying to side-step it?

If I think something is black, not grey, then why would I say, "It's not white" instead of saying it's black? Perhaps it's because if it is grey, and I know it's grey, and I say it's black, I just lied, whereas if I say it's not white, it could be black, and I haven't lied. Moore is great at this sort of rhetorical trick where he states a weaker version of a claim he implies is something stronger without actually making the stronger claim because he knows he can't back it up.

The problem is that this time he DID make the stronger claim, and stated that Bush lied. Why the sudden change? Why does he go from examples about something 'not being true' and stating that what Bush said wasn't true, to stating directly that he lied? If he had evidence that Bush lied, or was using your definition, he would have said it from the truth. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

The fact is that the definition you're trying to attach to this portion of the debate may look great on paper, but very few people -- not even Moore himself -- seem to buy that it's a viable line of argumentation.

Going back to your boxing analogy, they were both exchanging blocked blows and misses, nothing really solid, until Moore stumbles backwards over his own feet and falls down in the last 10 seconds of the round. And that's what the judges see, the last second screw-up, not the even match preceding it.

O'Reilly: 10 Moore: 4


On dead soldiers:

Moore's point is that the soldiers were sent in under false pretenses and died for a false cause. They may have done some good along the way (Moore does not deny this), but his point is very much true whether the cause was intentionally false or not, whether good was incidently accomplished or not.

Soldiers are not charged with following all orders and if I'm not mistaken are required to disobey orders which they feel are wrong. Soldiers are charged with defending our nation, and in this case, that's not what they were used for. Moore's round.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 9
Total: 19-18

Whether or not the reason was correct or not is irrelevant as far as the soldier's charge of duty. A soldier's job is to follow orders so long as they do not violate the rules of what orders they can follow. Soldiers are NOT required to disobey orders that they feel are wrong. If they were, then there would have been very few people in Vietnam, now wouldn't there.

Soldiers are required to follow orders unless they break the applicable law of the situation. They are forced to study said laws when they join the military. Feeling has nothing to do with it. Not gunning down innocent unarmed civilians is okay, not gunning down terrorists because you think that they're just 'freedom fighters' is not.

Moore states a tautology over and over -- that the reasons they were sent there for didn't pan out. Without saying it (because it would be a provable lie), he is trying to suggest that their deaths were in vain, that their deaths were for nothing. O'Reilly accurately counters that implication by pointing out that they followed orders, and despite not having the WMD reason pan out, they still accomplished something important.

O'Reilly: 10 Moore: 6
Total: 20-10


On mistakes:

Moore doesn't backtrack from his earlier claims that Bush lied, he's simply putting his questions in O'Reilly's own terms in an attempt to illustrate why he thinks Bush is responsible for the soldiers. He says that "Sorry, we made a mistake" isn't good enough for the parents of the fallen soldiers and scores a knockdown by coaxing an agreement out of O'Reilly, which inadvertantly reveals O'Reilly's tacit belief that there is at least some degree of administration responsibility for the soldiers and their families.

O'Reilly, to his credit, avoids the knockout punch by skillfully refusing to affirm that mistake-makers are morally responsible for the consequences of their mistake. While this is debatable, it isn't enough to carry the round and is not developed enough to counter Moore's point because it focuses on drunk driving rather than on ordering soldiers to war for reasons that turn out to be false.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 8
Totals: 29-26

If you're right, why would you argue according to your opponents terms? Why walk into a tautology if your terms are correct, and theirs are false? All you're doing is setting yourself up for failure.

Moore is making the argument that regardless of whether or not it was a mistake (the ambiguous language due to the fact that he cannot prove that it wasn't a mistake, and therefore intentional, and therefore a lie), 'oops' is never a fair explanation to the parents. Yet he ignores the fact that these people volunteered for service. He ignores the fact that the justification isn't in any way related to whether or not they need to carry out their orders. He plays on sympathy for parents whose kids volunteered for service, despite the fact that it's a straw man argument.

"Soldiers should never die for mistakes" is a statement everyone can agree with, but that has little to do with the discussion.

O'Reilly brings it back to the point by saying that people dying for mistakes is a horrible thing, but sometimes it happens, and it isn't right to attach malice as the motive of the person who made that mistake. Moore is trying to say that Bush is responsible for the parents feeling bad and that Bush is a bad person as a result. If I am working as a window washer, and I fall from the 8th floor while washing windows landing on a pedestrian killing him, am I a bad person? Is my character compromised by that mistake? Moore is trying to trap O'Reilly into stating that it is, and O'Reilly wasn't having it.

Everyone knows that Bush made a mistake. Had O'Reilly stated that he didn't, then Moore would win the point. You cannot argue that a mistake wasn't made here, THAT would be a lie, whereas stating that a mistake was made but holding Bush morally responsible for that mistake is incorrect is a good strategy to counter what would otherwise be arguing against 2+2=4.

O'Reilly: 6 Moore: 4
Total: 26-14


On the children:

A lot of you are mis-scoring this round because you don't seem to grasp the point behind it. Moore isn't saying politicians should have final say over every action their child makes, nor is he saying we should be sending infants into combat. With this point and the similar segment on F9/11 he's forcing the politicians to ask themselves if Iraq would be worth it if it was their own family making the sacrifice that they ask of other families. He's driving the point home that we have an obligation not to send these soldiers into harm's way unless it's necessary. In fact I think I'm quoting the movie directly in saying that. Moore, however, does fail to make this point clear within the context of this debate and receives one foul.

O'Reilly's only defense is answering a question that wasn't asked and refusing to think about making that sacrifice, which essentially is finding a corner and covering up while you wait for the bell. He hears the ten second warning hammered out and attempts to come out with a counter and late-round flurry by turning the question back on Moore, but Moore gives an equally evasive answer with an extra jab thrown in. He'd sacrifice himself to track down the people responsible for attacking us, rather than the people who posed no threat to us. Not an overly decisive round, but Moore's nonetheless.

Moore: 9 O'Reilly: 8
Totals: 38-34

I think you seem to be confusing what YOU took from his segment, and what Moore is actually asking. "would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?" is a very clear statement to me. He is asking if O'Reilly would sacrifice his own child to remove 30 dictators. He is not asking the child, he is not asking how O'Reilly would feel if his child were in Iraq, he's asking O'Reilly to make a choice as to the fate of his child.

Twist and turn it any way you want. He is asking a loaded question with no good answer, because he knows that people will think like you Duped. You do realize that Moore has every capability to ask the question the way that you think he intends it, but both in Fahrenheit 9/11, in interviews, and in this debate he chooses to phrase it the other way.

Just like with the first round of this debate you decide to interpret what he says differently than how he actually says it, and within the context of who Moore is, you're ignoring what he said in favour of what would make a more accurate question that wouldn't have half the rhetorical flair that this one does. If he asks if O'Reilly would support the war even if his child was out on the front lines, O'Reilly would answer yes, and Moore would have nothing he could argue against. However if he phrases it as O'Reilly's choice to sacrifice his child, he KNOWS that O'Reilly can't make that decision for his child, and therefore can't answer the 'yes' that he would to the question you think Moore is actually asking.

It's a Catch 22 -- if he answers your question while responding to the way you think it's intended, he's actually saying he would sacrifice his own child, and if he answers Moore's question, then you think that he's ignoring the underlying question that was never asked. That's why Moore phrases it that way, and it doesn't take a genius to see it. It's common sense.

Moore takes weak points and makes them strong in the way he phrases them.

"Bush didn't tell the truth."
"The reason the soldiers were sent there was WMDs."
"Would you sacrifice your child?"

He makes one statement, one phrase, and keeps hammering it because it's a no-win question to people who, like you, tend to sympathize with his beliefs and aren't looking at the actual syntax of what he's saying. You can either gloss over what he's actually saying in favour of what should actually be discussed, or you can look that he's asking loaded questions and making tautological statements.

O'Reilly: 10, Moore: 3
Total: 36-17


On revolution:

Moore's point is two-fold: revolution should be the catalyst for regime change, and democracy can't be delivered through the barrel of a gun. O'Reilly counters that revolution would not be possible in Iraq, but I see this defense as being feeble with the ready availability of automatic weapons throughout the entire region and the widely touted porous borders of the Arab world.

O'Reilly attempts to score with the fact that Moore opposes policies which would allow greater weapons access to such rebels, but in reality he's only committing a logical fallacy. Hypocrisy alone does not make one's current point incorrect. Moore's round.

Moore: 10 O'Reilly: 9

Moore's fight by judge's decision, 48-43.

This entire round was ugly. Both of them were exhausted and fed up. Both made glancing blows but neither could hammer a point home. Pitiful fighting.

O'Reilly: 4 Moore: 4
O'Reilly's fight by judge's decision, 40-21.

My basic complaint with your whole line of argumentation is based not on what Moore actually said, but what you think Moore actually meant. If you want Moore to be right, you will ignore the facts of what was phrased how in favour of making sense out of it. But Moore doesn't just make comments once, and he phrases things very carefully. Look at the editing in his movies to see how he tries to make something look a lot worse than it is without actually technically lying. It's his style.

Moore may not lie that often, but he sure as Hell rarely proves that the other guy did either.

[Daedric]

I don't know how much more clearly I can make it; Moore realizes that no parent can sign their children up for military service in Iraq. In saying "Moore is wrong because these examples aren't the same, the army guys VOLUNTEERED" you're really saying "Moore doesn't realize that parents cannot send their children into military service" which is idiotic. I don't see how an objective observer can claim that givens such as the public knowledge that you can't be forced into the military should be disqualified. You don't have to state or imply givens, they're given.

Moore may know that, but he intentionally misleads people all the time. If it were up to him, he would have you believe that people's children are being secretly rounded up at night by Bush and brought into the military. He also gets people to believe that "Bush sends your children off to die." No president ever has done this, and Bush is no different. He sends them off to accomplish victory. If you want to look at who sends there children off to die, look at the Palestinians. They strap bombs to their kids and send them into crowds of **** to kill both the child and innocents. That is sending kids off to die.

[mepersoner]

The point was the fact that they've volunteered is irrevelant because O'Reilly doesn't bring it to light. He just says "I'd go myself" and it isn't objective to assume the stance of "well they volunteered". The fact that people have volunteered for the military isn't a point brought up in the debate and shouldn't be brought up here. Moore asks if O'Reilly would send his kids to war, he says he'd go himself, that's repeated. Moore asks if O'Reilly would send other people's kids to war. Finally, Moore says Bush is sending kids to war and O'Reilly never contests it and never says he'd send kids to war himself, just that he'd go himself. Regardless of whether or not YOU can argue against Moore's argument is irrevelant in this dicussion, what's important is if O'Reilly did, and he didn't. Moore wins that round.

[IDupedInMyPants]

I don't see where some of you guys get off saying you're calling this debate in an objective manner when your points are "Moore lies a lot" or "Moore crafts his questions/points to mislead viewers a lot." Even if it's true, that's prejudice plain and simple. O'Reilly's a disgruntled fanboy who spins the hell out of any piece of news he gets ahold of and subsequently goes off screaming Dean-style at a sizable minority of his debate opponents, but nobody on either side is holding that against him in order to objectively analyze this debate.

You're analyzing a debate based on what you think of one guy's debate style outside of the debate in question. If you're going to judge them based on what you think they normally do, at least keep the mask of impartiality on long enough to do the same to both debaters.

I kinda wish the original poster had said "I saw this debate between two guys who will go unnammed" and posted the comments as being between X and Y instead of Moore and O'Reilly. And I guess removed references to Moore's movie. I'd be interested in seeing how some of these analyses would change if name-recognition-based ad-hominem weren't available. It would still be easy to follow the party lines of course, but it would have made this thread really interesting.

PLF's post is long enough that there are probably some decent points in there, I hope he'll extend me the same courtesy and let me get back to him when it's not quite so late at night.

[Pierrot le Fou]

If you can prove that Moore doesn't do the things that I claim he does on a regular basis, and/or if you can prove that what I've said he does has no relevance to my interpretation of the claims he's currently making, then we can play ball. Otherwise it sounds to me like you're saying it's not fair to bring in facts that are unrelated to the debate. Moore likes to use loaded questions, he does it a lot, and he asked the same loaded question about children to Congressmen in his movie. Am I supposed to ignore that when we discuss what he meant?

[Anakha1]

I'm not a fan of either one. I think they're both extremist and neither has that much of a grasp on reality. IMO, O'Reilly won the point about Bush going on misinformation, but Moore won the point on the troops being there for the wrong reasons. The troops weren't sent to remove a dictator because he was a tyrant against his own people, they were sent there to remove a dictator that had non-existant WMDs. The whole "removing a murderous tyrant because he's slaughtering innocents" was just a hindsight justification, and not among the initial reasons for invasion. Bush invaded because he thought Hussein was a threat to the U.S., which he wasn't, not because Hussein was a threat to the Iraqi populace. When he was proven wrong when no WMDs were found, they scrambled for an obvious moral highground and that was the obvious choice.

[{KOW}Spazed]

IMO, O'Reilly won the point about Bush going on misinformation, but Moore won the point on the troops being there for the wrong reasons. The troops weren't sent to remove a dictator because he was a tyrant against his own people, they were sent there to remove a dictator that had non-existant WMDs. The whole "removing a murderous tyrant because he's slaughtering innocents" was just a hindsight justification, and not among the initial reasons for invasion. Bush invaded because he thought Hussein was a threat to the U.S., which he wasn't, not because Hussein was a threat to the Iraqi populace. When he was proven wrong when no WMDs were found, they scrambled for an obvious moral highground and that was the obvious choice.

Just because we haven't found them doesn mean they aren't there. It is like the Where's Waldo books, you don't see him right away, but that doesn't mean he isn't there. Do I think the WMDs are there? Not sure one way or the other, I do know that they had lots of time to hide them and that is one big ****ing desert to hide them in.

I also remember reading that removing Saddam was part of the initial plan. It was like #2 on the list. #1 was finding the WMDs and #3 was freeing the people. CNN and Fox both did a 2 hour special on the plan for the war, I remember hearing something about it there too.

[Anakha1]

Just because we haven't found them doesn mean they aren't there. It is like the Where's Waldo books, you don't see him right away, but that doesn't mean he isn't there. Do I think the WMDs are there? Not sure one way or the other, I do know that they had lots of time to hide them and that is one big ****ing desert to hide them in.

I also remember reading that removing Saddam was part of the initial plan. It was like #2 on the list. #1 was finding the WMDs and #3 was freeing the people. CNN and Fox both did a 2 hour special on the plan for the war, I remember hearing something about it there too.

Because we haven't found them is reason enough to think they aren't there. We can't condemn without proof. Innocent until proven guilty. If they do find them, then there's justification. Until then, all anyone can presume is that they don't exist.

I don't believe that removing Sadam was a humanitarian effort. I think it was in the interests of the U.S. and Bush's personal vendetta.

[Pier]

IMO Bush just send the troops to end an old family feud. And since Iraq is full of oil, well isn't that nice.
But he needed a reason. WMD's and a threat to American/Western security are a perfect reason.

And so he "forced" the intelligence community to find evidence.
He discarded all proof against it (anyone remember Hans Blix and all weapon inspectors before him).
Furthermore Bush is not the smartest man in the world and will take whatever the real power brokers in his vicinity say (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz).
This combined with underestimating the resistance brought him a very nasty war, not to mention the whole world opion against him.

Did Bush lie? Hmm, hard to say. Let's say he wasn't objective in the first place and didn't listen to what he wouldn't want to hear.
Whas there reason enough to send the troops. No! He did not make a decision based on all available information.

Well, my 2 cents.

Grr pIER

[SaroDarksbane]

The whole "removing a murderous tyrant because he's slaughtering innocents" was just a hindsight justification, and not among the initial reasons for invasion.
O'Reilly didn't say "because he was slaughtering innocents". He said "that had".

There's a difference.

Whether or not there were WMD does not change the fact that the troops went over there to remove him from power.

EDIT:

Pier, your rant has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Pier]

EDIT:

Pier, your rant has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I know, but I just think both debaters don't put out good arguments, and these IMO ar ebetter.

As for appointing a winner in a debate: that's so subjective. So rant on....

Grr pIER

[Pierrot le Fou]

I know, but I just think both debaters don't put out good arguments, and these IMO ar ebetter.

As for appointing a winner in a debate: that's so subjective. So rant on....

Grr pIER
God bless relativism.

Seriously, what's the point of discussing anything if everything that gets discussed is subjective? No idea can ever be truly good or bad, so why have any ideas at all if they're all equally subjectively equal?

Geez.

[Anakha1]

O'Reilly didn't say "because he was slaughtering innocents". He said "that had".

There's a difference.

Whether or not there were WMD does not change the fact that the troops went over there to remove him from power.


I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly had suggested that. Those words were solely my opinion. I know they went there to remove him from power, but it's been a common defence by Bush defenders that they removed Hussein from power because he was a whackjob dictator who liked disappearing his own citizens. I don't think the reasons they had to remove Hussein were nearly that heroic. They went in to Iraq to remove Hussein because he supposedly had WMDs and because he was supposedly a threat to the U.S., of which both have turned out to be false. As a result, they looked for a new justification and jumped on the nearest moral excuse. But it was all hindsight and fabricated justifications. Sure, removing Saddam for his people's sake was a good reason, but it wasn't Bush's reason.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly had suggested that. Those words were solely my opinion. I know they went there to remove him from power, but it's been a common defence by Bush defenders that they removed Hussein from power because he was a whackjob dictator who liked disappearing his own citizens. I don't think the reasons they had to remove Hussein were nearly that heroic. They went in to Iraq to remove Hussein because he supposedly had WMDs and because he was supposedly a threat to the U.S., of which both have turned out to be false. As a result, they looked for a new justification and jumped on the nearest moral excuse. But it was all hindsight and fabricated justifications. Sure, removing Saddam for his people's sake was a good reason, but it wasn't Bush's reason.
Ah, but Anakha, this is where you lose the debate and move elsewhere. Moore was trying to imply that the soldiers died for nothing, since WMDs were the reason and we've found none. O'Reilly didn't argue that the WMDs weren't a mistake, but he did point out (accurately) that regardless of the reason that was given, these people didn't die for nothing, they managed to oust a nasty guy.

[Anakha1]

Ah, but Anakha, this is where you lose the debate and move elsewhere. Moore was trying to imply that the soldiers died for nothing, since WMDs were the reason and we've found none. O'Reilly didn't argue that the WMDs weren't a mistake, but he did point out (accurately) that regardless of the reason that was given, these people didn't die for nothing, they managed to oust a nasty guy.

I'm not trying to win any debate. I just went slightly OT for a minute. I think they're both wrong. I think Moore is more wrong, but O'Reilly isn't explaining it all. They didn't die for nothing. But the WMDs that they originally went in for, and risked their lives for, was not the reason they ended up dying for. That what they died for was not what Bush had intended them to die for. They went in for one thing (WMDs) and ended up pulling what they could out of the failed situation (saving the Iraqis from Hussein). That's all I'm saying.

[Pierrot le Fou]

They went in to follow orders.

If you were told to go and search a certain premise you had a warrant for, didn't find what you were looking for, but found other contraband in the process, would someone stating that you did good be an innaccurate assessment?

[Anakha1]

They went in to follow orders.

If you were told to go and search a certain premise you had a warrant for, didn't find what you were looking for, but found other contraband in the process, would someone stating that you did good be an innaccurate assessment?


Naturally. I'm talking about the admin's reasons, not the soldiers'. The soldiers went in because it's their job. But the overlying and greater reason is the admin's. As I said, they didn't die for nothing, but the reason they died was not administration's reason for sending them there.

[IDupedInMyPants]

Re: the "Moore wants us to think the soldiers died for nothing" angle in general.

I really don't think that's the case, and if it is the case it certainly doesn't show within the context of this particular debate. Moore doesn't deny that some good was done, but he does deny that the cause for sending them in to begin with was true, as does O'Reilly. You really can't fault Moore alone for this round because they agree, which, being Moore's question/point, gives the round to Moore in my eyes, but you could make a case for calling it a draw if you really wanted.

On to PLF's post in particular. For the sake of brevity I'm just going to respond by section without quoting.

On lying:

It doesn't matter what any of us think the definition of lying is, that's external to the debate they had. What matters is that neither debater set up the necessary premises to make their conclusion a sound one. They both had conclusions that could possibly be correct, and until they pick a definition amongst themselves, their conclusions are not even mutually exclusive. In fact, if they settled on the dictionary's dual definition, the conclusions still wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

As far as calling black notwhite, I really don't think Moore's purpose was to obfuscate the argument or water down his stance in order to prop his claims up more easily. He's a funny guy, but I don't think he's quite intelligent enough to think of something that devious on the fly. One could make the same case about O'Reilly's "It depends on if the mistake was unintentional." Is there such a thing as an intentional mistake? Is he backpedalling away from the idea that Bush's judgment was a mistake?

I don't see what's wrong with Moore's question, it does make a good point. If Bush told an untruth, what would you call that? O'Reilly would call it a mistake, Moore would call it a lie. Again, both can be true and they aren't mutually exclusive.

Pretty weak round all around, but I can't justify calling it anything but a tie. Regardless of whether or not we can prove or disprove either conclusion, neither of the participants did.

On dead soldiers:

My mistake on soldiers and what orders they were required to disobey. However, I still don't think the "they volunteered" bit holds up. And even if it is valid, O'Reilly didn't bring it up, so it doesn't much matter whether we can prove the argument has merit or not. Propping up O'Reilly's or Moore's performance based on our merits isn't a fair judgment of the debate.

Regardless of what we think Moore's intentions were, he did make a point and it's one O'Reilly agreed to - the original reason the soldiers were sent is false. While O'Reilly may have countered a perceived implication behind the point, he completely agrees with the point itself.

As an aside, because this is external to the debate between Moore and O'Reilly, I still believe Moore's driving point in instances like this is that we shouldn't send troops into harm's way unless it's necessary. This is explicitly stated in F9/11. If any judgments of intent are going to be made regarding Moore's point, they should be made keeping this in mind.

On mistakes:

I still think the mistake terminology Moore uses is an attempt to come to O'Reilly on O'Reilly's own terms. The overly simplistic driving example is evidence of that, it's nowhere near on par with Bush's "mistake." What he's doing is something I actually do myself from time to time. If you think something is entirely unsupportable, you take the best case scenario, put your opponent in it, and present it to your them for their reaction. Obviously if they can't stomach the best case scenario of their stance, they'd have to stand down or at the very least allow you to play the hypocrite card.

The best case scenario for O'Reilly's stance is that Bush made a well-intentioned, honest-to-goodness mistake that cost people their lives. Moore calculates incorrectly that O'Reilly would react adversely to someone who made an honest mistake that ended the life of his child. Not a really big deal within the context of the debate, maybe a dodged uppercut. I can see an argument for calling this round a draw, but I still think agreeing to "Sorry isn't good enough" does carry with it a belief that the administration is to some extent responsible. What else are they supposed to say to the parents? If the administration is in no way responsible then absolute silence would be good enough, sorry would be above and beyond the call of duty.

On children:

For the sake of discussion, let's say Moore was intentionally loading a question to make O'Reilly squirm. O'Reilly did squirm. He could have said "I think that's a loaded question, could you rephrase it?" or "I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking because I don't have the authority to send my child to war, could you clarify?" but he didn't. It isn't fair to score a round for O'Reilly because Moore was a jerk and O'Reilly failed to correct it. Instead of correcting it, O'Reilly turns around and calls Moore a Hussein defender.

On revolution:

The last round was ugly, I agree. I still think Moore edged ahead though. He made two decent points that O'Reilly attacked but didn't counter, but he did manage to make a hypocrite of Moore along the way. Unfortunately that doesn't go very far within the context of a single debate, because while it may wound the person, it leaves the points intact.

[Killfrenzy]

I think its funny that they said "unintentional mistake" i always though mistakes were supposed to be unintentional. I mean you dont intentionally screw up do you? An intentional mistake is not a mistake at all! stupid fancy words

[dirkdig]

Bush said he knew, not he thought. He delivered opinions as facts and he did it on purpose to gain support. He deliberately presetented these things as facts, when they weren't facts, that's a lie.
If you haven't been to Iraq, then you obviously are only being told that there was a war going on. You didn't have the ability to find out firsthand whether there was a war going on, and neither did Bush have the ability to 'know' that there were WMD. But you logically can claim that there WAS a war going on, because you could listen to reliable sources (ie news). This is exactly what Bush did. When his reliable sources turned out to be wrong, it means he was misled, not lying. Just as if it turned out there was no war in Iraq, then you would have been misled rather than lying.