The Instigator
slobodow
Pro (for)
Losing
62 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points

Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,773 times Debate No: 8690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (21)

 

slobodow

Pro

Hi id like to debate Bill O'Rielly as bieng a biased news commentater who doesnt care about learning facts just about getting his opinion out.
Many people view his news show believe they are actually getting facts and learning, but in reality they are watching false and biased news from a one sided man who wants everyone to see it his way.
Such can be sited here: this is Bill O'Rielly, where most shows ask and learn from theier guests Bill is attacking and yelling at his oponant.

In This video he discusses with Mccain his views, not asking Mccain his views but instead asking him how he will deal with helping his views: .

Heres O'reilly screaming at a son of a victem of 911 forcing his views on the kid, telling him to shut up, cutting his mic, telling him hes insulting his dad because hes against war and bush, and in the follow up O'Reilly changes what he said to make him out to be a conspiracy theorist:

And finally he argues and later screams at a U.S. war veteran for bieng against the war on Iraq, a possibe on on iran, andetc. He even calls her unpatriotic despit her 29 year service and him never serving in the army and when he cant win he cuts her mic off:.

Here is kieth olberman proving some of his statements false that O'Reilly still claims true to this day:.

Cutting peoples mics off, sreaming and arguing to one side, and attacking guests clearly can prove he swings to a side. He isnt looking for fact just trying to make himself look right by any means neccisary even though there is many occasions of him bieng incorrect.
I have only listed a few of the many occasions as i do not have the time to list them all.

Here is the definition of bias http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

I Challenge some one to dispute his obvious bias by attempting to show me him listening to a guest with a different view then his, not attacking that guest, not trying to prove them wrong just questioning them, and then verbally making a point that can prove O'Reilly does not match my listed definition.
Xer

Con

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate.

Pro has only proven that Bill-O likes to yell and scream a lot. This is not bias.

Pro has also shown numerous clips of Bill-O debating people with opposing viewpoints, which supports my argument. If Bill-O was biased, he would only interview people with the same viewpoints, which is obviously not true.

My opponent has defined "bias" but has failed to define "completely" or "often".
-completely - to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
-often - frequently
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I would like to remind my opponent that he bears a tremendous burden of proof. Pro bears a tremendous burden of proof because he has to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator.

I am greatly curious to see how Pro proves that Bill-O is 100% biased and frequently false.
Debate Round No. 1
slobodow

Pro

Interviewing people of different views does not make some one free from bias claims, he rarly even gives people of other views a chance to respond without interuption, attacks, or miic cut offs if he loses an arguement.

Debating people of different views actually makes him bias as he is putting one point of view forward.

Bill O'Reilly can never just interview, in every program he attacks, as such sampled in this video:

My opponant has not shown any evidence of him bieng unbiased, just contradicted himself by saying debating people of different views is unbiased as its debating, agrueing his point against his guests.
Xer

Con

"Interviewing people of different views does not make some one free from bias claims"
-It makes them free of the the claim that they are "completely biased" though.

"he rarly even gives people of other views a chance to respond without interuption, attacks, or miic cut offs if he loses an arguement"
-Irrelevant. He still lets them come on his show. This only proves that he is a poor debator and has poor etiquette. It does not prove he is "completely biased".

"Debating people of different views actually makes him bias as he is putting one point of view forward."
-How is only one point of view coming across?
-Bill-O's view vs. opponent's view = two different viewpoints.

"Bill O'Reilly can never just interview, in every program he attacks, as such sampled in this video:"
-Irrelevant. This does not prove he is "completely biased" or "often times false".

"My opponant has not shown any evidence of him bieng unbiased, just contradicted himself by saying debating people of different views is unbiased as its debating, agrueing his point against his guests."
-I don't have to show any evidence of him being unbiased. You are the one who holds the burden of proof.

I will quote myself from earlier in the debate:

"I would like to remind my opponent that he bears a tremendous burden of proof. Pro bears a tremendous burden of proof because he has to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator.

I am greatly curious to see how Pro proves that Bill-O is 100% biased and frequently false."
Debate Round No. 2
slobodow

Pro

I will quote you as well:
"Bill-Os view V's. opponent's view = two different viewpoints"
Is it that he is giving them a chance to speak or is using them to show a typical response to his arguments to make his argument look indefinite. He uses other views to spin them around into his own words, example of such can be cited on my video posted in round 1 of O'Reilly claiming the son of the 911 victim had said bush did not respond to 911 appropriately, instead he made the kids words out to be that Bush did the world trade center attacks to create to appearance of a conspiracy theorist.
It is still bias if he is using them to his advantage in the debate.

Also I would like to Reiterate the definition of bias as leaning to one political view over another, his show defiantly displays such, and cutting the mike off people who win arguments is very relevant as it shows no matter what O'Reillys point will prevail no matter what costs, proving he's not out for unbiased commendations just one sided debates for his point of view.

Id like to thank nags for taking me up on this debate and say this was a fun first time debate.
Xer

Con

Bill O'Reilly is somewhat biased, as is every other human being, there is no debating that; but that is not what this debate is about.

My opponent had to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator. He has failed to do so. Therefore, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Conduct: Tied
S & G: Tied
Argument: CON; CON proved that O'Reilly is not always a biased news commentator through delicate balancing of the facts; ie., "poor etiquette does not equal biased."
Sources: PRO; the videos were there and they were real, so I see no reason why the sources vote should go to CON.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Bill is a horrible excuse of a man. He's not just biased he is ignorant. He will not let anyone tell their view, no matter how logical or TRUE it is and he blatantly puts word's into his guest's mouth and twists them to make him seem like the logical one. His views are twisted and if he was ever put into a proper debate where he cannot interrupt his opponent, he will lose...terribly.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I know, my source is worthless and the content isn't even worth reading because it contridicts.
Posted by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
"somewhat biased."
Seriously, nags?
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"You have a PhD in Geophysics??? Interesting... what kind of research did you come up with?" Oh I see I have to have a PhD to read scientific reports about global warming but you don't? So any conclusion that I might come to that might contradict yours is null and void because I don't have a PhD. But any conclusion you come up with that might contradict mine is perfectly acceptable regardless of your education RIGHT! Mind you I didn't even give a position on the subject but I certainly know yours.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Nags, "I didn't even bother reading what you said slobodow. Terrible spelling" Ya that is pretty bad!
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Fairness doctrine is for the radio...

"Take global warming for instance I did find out the truth doing research. I would have never gotten the truth from any of them."
-You have a PhD in Geophysics??? Interesting... what kind of research did you come up with?
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Fairness doctrine. I know it isn't part of the discussion but it will be eventually. And the point about any news agency being biased stands. They all have a right to spin anything they want. It is up to the viewer to do research and find out if it is true. There is no more "news" as it used to be. They are all political and they have all destroyed their industries credibility. If you really want to know the truth you have to find out by yourself if you are interested enough to know. They all suck. Take global warming for instance I did find out the truth doing research. I would have never gotten the truth from any of them.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by Conor 7 years ago
Conor
slobodowXerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70