The Instigator
Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is Bill O'reilly looking out for you?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,240 times Debate No: 19554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good

Con

I would like to take part in, and vote on serious debates, but per my understanding of the rules, I am unable to do so until I have at least 3 debates under my belt. I have minimal experience in this format and would like to hone my skills before I "Jump in over my head" so to speak.

Thank you for considering this debate.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Alright, I accept this debate. I shall show that my opponent is wrong, and a filthy commie *sign*

As per standard rules, this is simply for acceptance. Also, I shall use *sign* where i am being sarcastic, as sarcasm cannot be easily broadcasted through text, a sarcasm sign will make things easier for my anti-american opponent*sign*.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good

Con

Holy Cow!, never in my wildest dreams did I expect Bill O'Reilly himself to respond to my debate invitation masquerading as a guy assuming the identity of one of the worlds foremost authority's in theoretical physics.

Thank you very much for accepting my invitation to debate. My intention was to allow the contender to choose which position of the debate to take, but my inexperience prevented me from launching the debate with those options.
I admire Mr. Stephen_Hawkins willingness to enter this debate from the Pro position, and am quite pleased to see that he brings a light hearted tone of satire. I invite Mr. Hawkins to please feel free to exercise his creativity by continuing the persona he has brought to this forum without concern that I would take any of his brilliant sarcasm seriously.
Note to Voters: Please recognize satire in this debate for what it is, and within reason, consider refraining from excluding conduct points within context. (After all, Right wing wacko's just can't help themselves, its part of their DNA) *Grin*
With that being said,
I submit for your approval.

Mr. O'reilly is a member of the entertainment industry. Historically this industry measures it's success by the size of audience it attracts. In the medium of commercial (cable) television in western society, capital is received from advertisers and cable company subscriptions. Any given "Show's" ability receive income from said advertisers is dependent on ratings. (determination of the size of audience viewing that particular show).
Bill O'reilly has to justify his show's continued existence by insuring a large enough audience to insure a satisfactory profit margin for his employer Rupert Murdock (See Citation #1) .
With these facts being known, it is easy to conclude that Bill O'reilly's main focus is Bill O'reilly and Rupert Murdock's bank account. Mr. Murdock has a long history of producing sensationalist media products (See Citation #2)
In the business world, (and in life in general) evolution in the form of survival of the fittest tends to rule the day. being as any approach that does not produce a desired result (or the best result) tends to fall by the wayside. for Mr. Murdock, media that appeals to the audiences emotions has been very successful for him (He's built his empire on it). Mr. O'reilly know's that if he appeals to his audiences emotions rather than it's intellect, he is more likely to sustain market share.
He also know's that the most successful tactic of appealing to a mass audience's emotions has historically been to appeal to the audiences resentments (whether real or imagined). And as a member of a network who's tagline is "Fair & Balanced" but just happens to lean heavily to the right wing of the political spectrum, Mr. O'reilly finds an audience receptive to the idea that any other political ideology other than conservative republican's positions are depriving his audiences of something they hold dear. Mr. O'reilly touts this position on a consistent basis , and often touts the phrase Bill O'reilly's "looking out for you" or "The Factor is Looking Out For You" the obvious inference is that his audience needs someone to look out for them because everybody other than Bill and his associates at Fox News are not looking out for you, which leaves the emotional feeling that the aforementioned 'Everybody" that Bill "exposes : on every show is out to take something away from the viewer that they hold dear.
For these reasons it should be clear that Bill O'reilly really isn't looking for you.

Citation #1 http://topics.nytimes.com...

Citation #2 http://www.independent.co.uk...

Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Almost! I am actually the guy moving the camera. A Fox News cameraman, and a republican Texan (From the other side of the world).

"...has to justify his show's continued existence by insuring[sic] a large enough audience to insure a satisfactory profit margin for his employer Rupert Murdock[sic]" OK, that is the first clash:

Fox News earns enough money to be kept on as a TV show. In 2010, about 42 million different people watched CNN for at least an hour a month. That was more than Fox’s 41 million and MSNBC’s 37 million[1]. Even with its recent 11% loss, that is so large (Fox achieved an average of 13.9 million viewers for the 8pm half hour) that cancelling it is ridiculous. It also has a lot lower cost: It requires little to no animation, a tiny crew, and each showing is incredibly long, allowing for much advertising.

Now, whether Murdoch or Reilley are caring what the left like them (the commies*sign*), that is irrelevant. It is not their target market. They are aimed at republicans. Just look at the shows Fox has done! [2].

Finally, I think you are seeing the show in the wrong way. He is not a news reporter. No matter how much O'Reilley wants to be, he is no more a reporter than Kent Brockman is. Anyone who believes what he says is fact has problems other than him. There are many people pushing their opinion as fact, and the thing is, O'Reilly is simply filling the niche: a video version of an opinion column. When he says he is looking out for you, he means he is trying to look out for you. You communist. The fact that he hopes that every viewer can take something out for it that they hold dear. He's wrong, insane, crazy, mad, delusioned right wing neo-libertarian conservative lunatic, but he genuinely wants to look after you.

But not just does he hope on every show can "someone take something away from the viewer that they hold dear"? I'd say yes. I, for one, take out a laugh or two. Others start taking his opinion for fact. They are still taking something out of it. They are still prophesising what he thinks it truth.

In conclusion, I think it is quite straight forwards to any non-communist Christian America-loving individual to see how we can agree: O'Reilly does want to look out for you. Whether he succeeds is a topic for another time.



1 http://www.businessinsider.com...


2 http://www.newshounds.us...



Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good

Con

I wish to thank my esteemed colleague from Austria with the funny mustache in the brown shirt *Grin* for his poignant eloquence in expressing his passionate argument.
With all due respect for my thoughtful opponent, he has done more for making my argument than he has for defending his own with such statements like " They are aimed at republicans" (in reference to Fox News programming) and " They are still prophesising [Sic] what he thinks it truth." (In reference to his viewers).
The position that Fox News, and the Bill O'reilly show (along with all Fox News Programing after 7:00 pm) are" aimed at republicans" stands in stark contrast to the show and networks oft stated proclamation that they are "Fair and Balanced". If what my opponent says is true (which he is in fact correct), then Mr. O'reilly by definition is only looking out for republicans and not an audience that is receptive to "Fair and Balanced" positions, because to take the side of one major political position (the fascist's) *Grin* excludes a balanced position by definition. For example, if for instance a casual a-political,handicapped, pot smoking, atheist, gay, immigrant of Jewish and African decent were to get stuck watching the Bill O'reilly show in some airport, It is doubtful, Mr. Oreilly would have much to say that looks out for him.
When one says that they are "looking out for you" under the auspice of "Fair and Balanced" while talking to a large audience, they must concede that they are "looking out for" everyone in that audience , not just the members of that audience that share ones own ideology.
I feel this point alone makes my point, and relinquish the remainder of this debate to my gun toting, whiskey drinking, family values supporting wife beater of an opponent. *LOL*

Thank you Stephen Hawkins for a delightful and entertaining debate.
I await your carefully thought out,rational, and courteous response. :-)
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

The communist's final argument can be summarised as a single point: The statement "Fair and Balanced" does not correlate with the republican viewing.

Now, let me say this first: Does any of the major networks advocate Anti-american, anti-freedom, stalinist government at any time? How about the mass genocide of the jews? They don't, at any time. This is not because they are not "Fair and balanced", but because they are tailored towards a specific audience. What O'Reilly does is take facts, construe them and interpret them and stretch them this way and that in order to promote an idea, however, extreme, however stretched, to attack people he does not agree with nor like. However, if we use the strict definition of balanced to mean every possible side of the story, we cannot be saying anyone at any time is "Fair and Balanced", and the aspiration of having to meet this expectation is ludicrous.

However, if we start being reasonable, we can state "Fair and Balanced" as meaning meeting a large share of the target audience, and addressing them with fair and balanced news, then we can say they are fair and balanced. As my opponent said, "a casual a-political,handicapped, pot smoking, atheist, gay, immigrant of Jewish and African decent were to get stuck watching the Bill O'reilly show in some airport, It is doubtful, Mr. Oreilly would have much to say that looks out for him." This is because thir views contradict his majority audience, and he must address them fairly. When he is saying "looking out for you" under the auspice of "Fair and Balanced", it is impossible for anyone, ever, at any period in time, for any period of time, to accept this. Some people watch the show for comedy, for *%$" sake, how is anyone supposed to cater for them?

Just as a note, Fox News also has been queitly noted as one of the fairer american news stations: "http://www.forbes.com...;

In conclusion, there are 3 reasons you should vote PRO in this debate:

1. CON is Communist. Just look at him.

2. There is no way of addressing every member of the audience: that is an unfair and ridiculous burden of proof. However, if we say he addresses the majority of viewers and looks after them, then we must agree that he does. Whether this is through excessive misconstrual, downright lying, or just being an authority to cite for the people to trust.

3. I am not communist. Look at me: I cannot afford my own picture, because I am protecting you. I am looking out for you. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Votes concluded, Bill O'Reilly is really looking out for you.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Who IS Billy O'Reilly anyway? Ive heard of him before I think but thats it and I never knew who he was...
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Stephen Hawkins (Hawkings) is smart enough to argue this debate lol
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
No one who has requisite knowledge of Bill O'Reilly will accept this. It's debate suicide.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Hmmm...You want sum quick debates? Post your arguments in the first round,and make the debate short.. And then put up controversial topics or interesting ones...
Posted by Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good 5 years ago
Mr.Big_is_Bud_Good
Hmmm, I'm not sure I mean anything when I say "you", What I am referring to is what Bill means when he says that "I'm looking out for you" or "The Factor is looking out for you". If you've ever made it through an entire show with any amount of regularity, I'm sure you've heard the phrase mentioned or pasted upon the screen at least once.
Thanks for your inquiry.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Because if I'm part of the 1%, then I can easily claim and support that he is looking out for me.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
by "you" do you mean "the general public"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Mr.Big_is_Bud_GoodStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave good examples to solidify why he thinks O'Reilly is defiantly look out for you.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Mr.Big_is_Bud_GoodStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As much as I hate Bill O'Reilly toe con never gave a solid actual reason about why he is not "looking out for me".... Pro provided what could be an argument suggesting he is but at least he gave some examples, so arguments go to pro.