• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

O' Reilly VS Dawkins - Who's the winner?

N

nemesiss

New Member
arg-fallbackName="nemesiss"/>
to admins: if this topic is better placed in another place, please relocate.

So we have Richard Dawkins promoting his new book, which most here will be aware of and perhaps have already a copy of, so it was bound to happen that he would show up (again*) on Fox news.

* the last time being to promote his book "the god delusion"

So we have have O' Reilly ranting about things, Dawkins' counters them and the battle goes forth and forth...
So in your opinion, who do assumes has won this battle of wits?

the fight




the previous encounter




The opinion of The Young Turks
 
arg-fallbackName="Demojen"/>
Is this a joke?
Do you seriously expect O'Reilly to make a valid argument on any topic Richard Dawkins would choose to debate?

O'Reilly works for FOX.

This is one of those situations in which Dawkins chose to expose himself to the idiocy of FOX to promote something...There is no winner and I'm reminded more of the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary." then I am any fair and balanced discussion for which there are "winners" or "losers".

Though if I were to arbitrarily choose a criterion for which to mark a winner on these interviews, it would be for the validity of claims based on supporting evidence and Richard Dawkins would win hands down.
 
arg-fallbackName="MRaverz"/>
I love how they don't talk about the book itself. :lol:

Simple response to Bill's 'I'm throwing in with Jesus' argument: Why doesn't he 'throw in' with some other mythical being? ;)


Loving Dawkins' face at 1:50! :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="Giliell"/>
Well, I'd generally go with "the one who shouts is the loser"
But I guess that only rational civilised people see it that way and a lot of the sheep will applaude the passionate behaviour.
But the worst bit?
Excusing himself for his bad manners by claiming to be Irish!
Born in New York to parents from NY and New Jersey...
WTF?
I'd say I'm more Irish than him, at least I once was an official resident of the RoI.
 
arg-fallbackName="drogoscg1"/>
Proper debate does not belong on tv unless it is moderated and time is given without commercials. O'Rielley simply shouts down the opposition, he never debates anything. He shouts down what he already dislikes then coddles someone who will give him an answer he wants.

Science does not know the exact nature of the creation of the universe, therefore believe in Jesus. How illogical can you get????
 
arg-fallbackName="felix1049"/>
Dawkins should know better than to go onto a taped show with Oreilly where it's his want to edit the interview in any way he wants to make it appear he's smarter than he actually is. That's one reason why Micheal Moore refuses to do any taped interview with any Faux "reporter".
 
arg-fallbackName="GuppyPal"/>
Bill O'Reilly pretty much "wins" every debate on his show because he won't allow anything else. If he feels he's losing he will shout over his opponent, change the subject, or cut their mic (yes, I've seen that happen). The truth is he's an ignorant moron and couldn't win against an intelligent 12 year old in a moderated debate.

I know Dr. Dawkins is just trying to promote his book, but I really wish people would take a stand against Fox News altogether. I remember seeing a large protest being covered in Denver, CO I think, and when the Fox News reporter went up to people, they just ignored them and wouldn't talk to them. Eventually they started chanting "Fuck Fox News! Fuck Fox News! Fuck Fox News!). You want to hurt a news network, don't give them anything to talk about, even if that's your own book. I suppose Dawkins, being the gentleman he is, simply hopes he can bring a few of the idiot FN audience to the light. Good luck!
 
arg-fallbackName="Demojen"/>
FOX is like the Enquirer.

It's tabloid news.
Not legitimate.

Anyone who buys into FOX "News" as holding any measure of credibility, then doesn't do their own research deserves to be dumb founded by the truth of the matter...

...and for those who can't take the heat, get off Fox news. You're in a damn firing range.
 
arg-fallbackName="dr_esteban"/>
That Dawkins even goes on the show makes O'Reilly the winner. Hopefully he will take a pass in the future
 
arg-fallbackName="Vladimir"/>
I think that to me, Dawkins wins, but to the average viewer Bill would seem stronger.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nick"/>
I think idea of 'winning a debate' only applies to an actual live debate. This was a prerecorded and probably highly edited video clip; it hardly qualifies.
 
arg-fallbackName="monitoradiation"/>
theatheistguy, really? DickDawks barely spoke at all in that interview.

The guy who had the last word sounded pretty on the spot to me, though.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dusty341"/>
Dawkins is notorious for his refusal to debate Creationists, among other things. He doesn't want the Creationists benefiting from an edited version of the debate, not to mention the money they could make from the sales of a cut and propagandized version. After the insulting interview Richard gave Bill before this one, I am really surprised that Dawkins would subject himself to another edited and overly biased interview. Experienced Douche, Bill O'Reilly, is a master of the straw man argument, not to mention mercilessly tenacious with his difficult and unfair questions. I am just confused as to why Dawkins would try to promote his new book on a show that wants to discredit him. I think Keith Olbermann would be a much more preferable interviewer than that Twat Waffle Bill O'Reilly.
 
arg-fallbackName="nemesiss"/>
Dusty341 said:
Dawkins is notorious for his refusal to debate Creationists, among other things. He doesn't want the Creationists benefiting from an edited version of the debate, not to mention the money they could make from the sales of a cut and propagandized version. After the insulting interview Richard gave Bill before this one, I am really surprised that Dawkins would subject himself to another edited and overly biased interview. Experienced Douche, Bill O'Reilly, is a master of the straw man argument, not to mention mercilessly tenacious with his difficult and unfair questions. I am just confused as to why Dawkins would try to promote his new book on a show that wants to discredit him. I think Keith Olbermann would be a much more preferable interviewer than that Twat Waffle Bill O'Reilly.
Click to expand...


the answer: there is no such thing as bad publicity

it's quite a smart move. The people here would probably buy the book. people who watch fox news (and think its honest news) will not probably buy the book. this way he can make noise over there and through the "interview" he can make a couple of the viewers curious enough to buy the book.

the one thing in my opinion where Dawkins won the hardest was when he said "Will you listen to me and stop shouting at me?!".
it stomped o' Reilly for a few seconds because he wasn't expecting it. a victory for all those who tried to get an argument accross to him.
 
arg-fallbackName="Jon44"/>
why do people even agree to go on o'reilly's show anymore? his definition of giving an interview is to just sit there and yell and make sure his guest can't get a word in so he can later tell himself that he won. if the goal of his show is to be as rude to his guests as possible, then he doesn't deserve a show. Dawkins won for not flipping out on o'reilly like we all wish he would've.
 
arg-fallbackName="nemesiss"/>
Jon44 said:
why do people even agree to go on o'reilly's show anymore? his definition of giving an interview is to just sit there and yell and make sure his guest can't get a word in so he can later tell himself that he won. if the goal of his show is to be as rude to his guests as possible, then he doesn't deserve a show. Dawkins won for not flipping out on o'reilly like we all wish he would've.
Click to expand...


like you describe it, it indeed going into the lion's den. It is something you can't escape out without a scar.
one thing one could do, is have an additional camera crew besides the fox crew to film it. that way, if they warp the truth... the other camera can call fox on their bullshit.

sortof like the thunderf00t - ray comfort thing.
we know that comfort will try to make money out of it... with some additional cuts.
but when cutting important parts out of it, people can point out the bullshit because of the RAW footage on the thunderf00t channel.
that way it'll only harm comfort so i doubt they'd be so stupid.


like i said, its for commercial benefit to go onto that show, though you must be well prepared for o'Reilly to actually make your point. and i think Dawkins did a good job of it, which other can used as an example.
he managed to use points used against him in his advantage by redirecting them back, which is quite a difficult trick by itself.
 
arg-fallbackName="NateHevens"/>
Dawkins, because O'Reilly is a dick.

However, be glad Dawkins didn't end up with Hannity or... god-forbid... Glenn Beck. *shudders*


Someone mentioned Olbermann as a better alternative...

Be careful. Be very careful. Olbermann would be good to Dawkins because, in general, Olbermann agrees with Dawkins. But Olbermann is to MSNBC what O'Reilly is too Fox. They are both the same... just on opposite sides of the coin. Conservatives find Olbermann to be an unintelligent, loud-mouthed idiot. Liberals find O'Reilly to be an unintelligent, loud-mouthed idiot. The difference? Other then ideologies, none. Olbermann is just as Liberal as O'Reilly is Conservative.

Dawkins would have been better served to go on a program that either espouses both biases at once (like, for example, back when Hannity had Colmes... although that's a tentative balance at best, seeing as Colmes was largely silent on the program), or refrains from espousing bias at all (I'm not quite sure if any such show exists in the states, but I can dream).

That said, I think Dawkin's best "interview" thus far has been with Stephen Colbert. Those I am partial too..
 
arg-fallbackName="NateHevens"/>
Hold up... at 1:13 in the first video, did O'Reilly admit that he believed in Evolution?

Maybe I'm deaf, but I missed that before.

Maybe there's a smidgen of hope for the fool, yet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top