What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
170 Comments
- matman730, on 10/12/2007, -6/+74If you tell your opponent in a debate to shut up, it means you're incapable of defeating his argument on its own merits. Every time I hear O'Reilly say "shut up", I mentally replace it with the words "I give up, you win", since it amounts to the same thing.
- barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71That kid deserves respect from anyone that believes in standing up for themselves.
- NikhilPK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+60That kid has a lot of self control.
- reldren, on 10/12/2007, -8/+57@samuraitux:
"...Bill o'reilly used ethos, pathos, logos argument techniques to make his arguments..."
Inserting arbitrary and contextually-meaningless Latin-ish words into your statement is a sure sign that you're a complete tool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Plus, you seem to have no grasp of logic, grammar or spelling. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but all the signs point to the fact that you're a moron. - devwal, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46Samurai: "Shut up" and insulting someone's family is what type of argument? Congrats on using your vocabulary words, but no thank you: I own a dictionary.
- vikramkr, on 10/12/2007, -14/+47WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? O'Reilly was logical when making his arguments? Did you just see the same video that I did? "Shutup!" and "I will ***** tear you to pieces!" aren't techniques for making one.
- reldren, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@samuraitux
Besides, "ethos, pathos and logos" apply to RHETORIC, not DEBATE.
And please, for the love of god, don't start babbling about how they're the same thing. It's bad enough trying to slog through the crap you've written already. - Anvilman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I must have missed the part where Glick outfoxes O'Reilly.... just seemed like O'Reilly acted like the thug he is and shouted him down, then trash-talked his family for the next year.
- reldren, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33@samuraitux:
I'm sorry, perhaps my first comment wasn't clear enough.
You are not an intelligent person. Your thinking processes are confused and inefficient. You are a dumb person. You do not understand logic. You do not understand the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'. You have no research skills.
Stop posting on this website. Why not try fark? - Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27@sspooner
Its a little different to digg down a comment than for O'Reilly to shut off someone's mic because
a) you can still read a buried comment--I love reading buried comments because they're more interesting and controversial, but the fact that its buried lets me avoid it if i'm not in the mood to raise my blood pressure over some idiotic comment
b) Thousands of diggers burying a comment is more democratic than one douchebag yelling "shut up" and kicking you off a show - sspooner, on 10/12/2007, -12/+32I don't agree with his point of view, far from it, but I respect him for putting his point across.
People here on Digg could learn a lot from this guy. Typically your average digger simply buries a comment they don't agree with, ironic eh ?
People here complaining how Bill didn't let the kid speak, yet they are perfectly happy to bury a comment they disagree with. Ooooh, the irony. - Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Exactly--he went there, stood up for his beliefs, which were FAR less crazy than Mr. O'Reilly makes them out to be. We (the American government) trained and armed extremists in Afghanistan to trap the Russians in their own Vietnam War, and, thanks to our lack of foresight, that same group of people planned and executed 9/11. While I don't really blame the government that much for this mistake (at the time, the Russians were the only "bad guys" we really cared about), he has the right to be outraged and the right to air his views when INVITED onto Mr. O'Reilly's show.
The analogy about inviting a guest into your home and kicking him out for spitting is also very off--it's not like O'Reilly didn't know the guy's position! If you invite a guy who spits all the time into your home, and then he spits, its your own damn fault. - vostok4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Wow, I've never seen the O'Reilly show, and I hope I never see it again. This is the kind of garbage we don't need in today's media.
- aumgrown, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25"They other guys are trying to distort the truth since if o'really was lying he could have been sued in civil court for lying"...
Fox news actually had a lawsuit brought against them by two of their own reporters who they fired for telling the truth after being ordered by Fox headquarters to lie. The court decided in favor of Fox news because there is no law stating that the news has to tell the truth, so these honest reporters were not protected and lost everything. Watch Outfoxed(Documentary) for the rest of the story and lots more about how Fox has brought journalism to new lows. If you believe anythig you hear on Fox news is true, you need to have your head checked, nothing but a network that the worst of America turns to to justify the worst of "our" actions. - reldren, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23@samuraitux
Nice try, but that page is a poorly-summarized hackjob of an explanation.
Aristotle wouldn't like you raping his ideas. - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18
"...Bill o'reilly used ethos, pathos, logos argument techniques to make his arguments..."
In other words, he used the ad-hominem fallacy, emotional derailing of the argument, and implying a false deduction in his argument. - CoolFly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21@ samuraitux
O'Reilly does use 911 victims for his own benefit. If he is helping people who suffered because of the World Trade Centre bombings then it helps to contrast the fact that he is an *****. Glick didn't say that 911 was a plan by Bush, he said that Bush was indirectly responsible (which he is) because his administration funded those very terrorists.
And how could you even tell what Glick was trying to say? O'Reilly cut him off every time he heard something he didn't like! I'm surprised that Glick snap after being told that he was an embarrassment to his family. What does O'Reilly know about Glick's family? Nothing.
Also the reason that crap is number one is because the world is full of morons. People who watch that ***** are the reason most of the world thinks that everyone in the U.S. is as a stupid redneck ***** (which isn't true).
As for Crossfire, that show was just as bad and it was canceled because someone with brains had the guts to stand up and verbally rape Tucker Carlson. They should get Jon Stewert on O'Reilly's show so that I can laugh as it gets canceled within the first five minutes, of course that's as long as O'Reilly doesn't turn off Stewert's mic. - radioact1ve, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Major props to Glick, he followed one of my most important rules:
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I would expect a lot more from someone who has primetime air. Someone who claims to be an honest newsreader, representing an 'unbiased' view of political and social issues should do just that, and this guy is absolute garbage. Kudos to Jeremy for staying cool under fire and sticking to what he believed in, really admirable.
Jimzip :D - corbettl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22I'm just waiting for someone to punch him right between the eyes. I'd do a little time just to get back at that moron.
- Skab, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23yeah so sad, but what the hell can you expect from him.
- astatine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Basic rule of thumb:
If someone raises their voice without provocation (other person shouted first, to be heard over noise or distance), they are lying, if only to themselves.
It's not a perfect rule, but I've found it holds up in most case - particularly when the speaker has a microphone and PA. - Jalexxi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Okay, let's analyze the arguments then, since you seem to be so fond of rethoric. Only with a little spin here. I'm going to check if the argument logically makes sense, instead of rating it by persuasion power (I shortened the arguments a bit).
Glick: "Bush trained the people that attacked the US, that's why I don't support the war." This makes sense, and is supported by facts.
O'Reilly: "I don't think your father would approve of that." Starting it off with a logical fallacy, and argument ad hominem. O'Reilly attacks the person he is talking to (or their father), not their argument.
Glick: "You abuse 911 to rationalize your agenda." This is a political opinion.
O'Reilly: "I have done more for the 911 families then you will ever hope to do, so shut up." This is not even a retort to the opinion of Glick. It is basically saying, you can't bring forth this opinion, because I did such and such.
O'Reilly: "You have a warped view of this world and this country." This is a politcal opinion.
Glick: "Well, let me give an example..." This is beginning of a retort.
O'Reilly: "No." This is the end of the retort. O'Reilly doesn't give him the chance to counter.
O'Reilly: "You didn't support the war in Afganisthan." This is a fact.
Glick: "Why would I want to brutalize the people of Afganisthan?" This is an explanation of that fact.
O'Reilly: "They killed your father." This is untrue. The people of Afganisthan had nothing to do with this. Only a small faction of terrorists did so. It is like saying the people of America torture prisoners because of what happened at Abu-Graib (is that spelled correctly?).
Glick: "No they didn't." Fact.
O'Reilly: "Yes, they did." Continuation of the lie.
Glick: "What about George Bush?" Rethoric question.
O'Reilly: "He had nothing to do with it." Untrue. George Bush trained the terrorists responsible for 9/11, and therefore did have something to do with it.
Glick: "But he trained a hundred thousand Mujah-Hadeen." Not sure if these numbers are exaggerated, but this is the truth."
O'Reilly: "I hope your mom isn't watching this." Argument ad hominem.
O'Reilly: "I am not going to say any more about this." Statement.
Glick: "Did you know what I was doing on Sept 14th?" Continuation of the debate.
O'Reilly: "Shut up." End of the debate. O'Reilly prevents Glick from making his point.
O'Reilly: "In respect for your father, I will not say anymore." Argument ad hominem.
Total counts?
Glick: Maybe he exaggerated numbers once, I am not sure. Other times, he voiced his opinion.
O'Reilly: Three Logical fallacies. Two lies. Two counts of not letting the opposition make their point.
Now tell me. Which of the two debated the best? - Mobius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20It's great to see this video. Bill O'Reilly is a pompous douche, and it's sad so many people side with his crap. Fox News in general is crap, but what news channel isn't?
- blablaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I can expect him to attempt to defend the president's every move... until 2008.
- Jimzip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19What an arrogant fool. He doesn't even bother listening to another objectionable viewpoint, he just slams the poor kid. This just re-affirms my belief that there are too many insane morons in positions of influence.. Sad.
Jimzip :D - Kickboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21I've long known O'Reilly was rude and a poor debater, but this video just shows how far he goes to discredit anyone he disagree's with to all the brainwashed Republicans in America. It's sickening. The simple fact is O'Reilly is a facist. He does not belong on national television, and I pray for the day he truely drops the ball and someone slaps a multi-billion lawsuit on Fox News. It will happen. If it wasn't for Fox News' team of slimely lawyers, it would have happened 10 years ago.
- earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16O'Reilly is scum and not from what he would expect me to say. I do find his beliefs to be rather base and ridiculous but he is scum for the fact that his actions and thoughts are born of hate and anger. He is like a child and that video shows it very clearly. it is astounding to me that he is allowed in such a position and especially one that proports to some degree to be news-esque program. He can not take views different from his own and when he feels threatened he does what anyone without a frontal lobe would do, becomes violent and agressive and yet tries to act as if he has the moral ground. Incredibly pathetic.
- kickmenow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I guess it depends on how you view the interview. I suppose most right-winger, pro-O'Reilly folks will look at the interview and think that O'Reilly had every right to act the way he did.
But for the rest of us, we can see how Glick takes advantage of O'Reilly's consistently hostile behavior, and allows O'Reilly to dig his own hole, so deep only the most closed-minded can't see just how lacking in objectivity O'Reilly is.
There is nothing quite so satisfying as seeing a person take down someone else using nothing more than that other person's own behavior. There's a beautiful elegance about it. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14before you spam once more with nonsense, read what Wikipedia has to say about the history of Afghanistan.
"Opposition against, and conflict within, the series of communist governments that followed, was considerable. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service agency known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which were derived from discontented Muslims in the country who opposed the official atheism of the Marxist regime, in 1978. Brzezinski's recruiting efforts included enlisting Usama bin Laden to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden became a stinger missile expert in this war earning the nom de guerre "The Archer." In order to bolster the local Communist forces the Soviet Union - citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries in 1978 - intervened on December 24, 1979. The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans who moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. More than 3 million alone settled in Pakistan. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan - LostTranslation, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I don't recall him saying any of that, I believe you are referring to the words O'Reilly put in his mouth. All the guy said was that the citizens of Afghanistan were not responsible and that the subsequent war worsened their already poor lives. He also said that Bush Sr. who was, in the 80's, head of the CIA, gave training, weapons, and money to the freedom fighters so that they could beat the Soviets. Those same "freedom fighters" are now members of Al Qaeda. THAT is what he was saying. NOT that the Bush clan masterminded 9/11. Like Bill, get your facts straight.
- Hutch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It infuriates me every time O'Reilly tells him to "shut up" and the guy does and waits for O'Reilly to make his own point. Then is never given the time to make his own and when O'Reilly finally runs out of steam and it would be his time to speak they cut his mic and go to a commercial. I guess when you have your own show you can be as absolutely ignorant and rude as you want to be and then lie about the other person's thoughts when you're given more screen time the next day.
- Culex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Truly amazing. This is a perfect example of why O'Reilly and Fox News are nothing but garbage.
- turricanz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+111. Have opponent of right wing idiocy come to the show
2. Spout some crap about 'respect for troops/family/widows'
3. Yell at opponent for being 'idiot/non-patriotic/twisted'
3a. (never let opponent speak, we cant have an honest debate here can we)
4. Aftwards twist story and drap yourself in a flag and be outraged.
5. profit? - AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@astatine, very true, I always take raising the voice as "you know your point is weak and you're trying to shout out whatever fake argument you have to overshadow my (or someone else's) rational argument)
- CandySnatch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10What's more worrying is not that a TV 'personality' like that can get away twisting those events to suit his own ends later, but a large proportion of his viewers will trust him because he's who he is...
- Seveneb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9O'Reilly is a monster and a sickening one at that. Glick lost his father and O'Reilly had the gall to tell him to shut up "Out of respect for your father." Every time someone begins to get the best of him, he resorts to shouting and threatening. He is a shill and a liar. I can't wait until he is off the air. Fair and balanced my ass!
- muikano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8sure, but the opposing view of samurai doesnt make any sense either. You can tell by the way he words his paragraphs that he doesnt have a concise idea of what he's talking about. Therefore Digg down. I also digg down anyone who replies to samurai.
That kid does show self restraint. You dont even have to agree with Glick to know he won his argument. The first person to yell shut up always loses. Bill Reilly could have countered with: "Bush Sr. may have funded the Mujaheen, but the training was against the Russians. That's a little too much to say that Bush is indirectly responsible because of this. After all, France gave training to America during the war for independence--and so we gave the same to the Afghanistan. Just because the help returned to bite us in the rear doesnt mean Bush was at fault for doing so but that them Mujadeen are pretty ungrateful creatures."
As far as a meeting of the minds is concerned, Glick was the better man. - Kilroy2004, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I would agree - I wouldn't call it outfoxing because then it sounds like Glick planned to make O'Reilly dig his own hole. It looks to me like he expected to get cut off before he went in there, but he was still trying to get his say in - and didn't succeed because O'Reilly is a pathetic ego-driven lunatic.
He didn't outfox O'Reilly. O'Reilly outfoxed himself. - Hutch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I whole heartily agree. Honestly, the fact that someone can still have a job on television the day after they win an argument with "SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP" (and by win I mean claim to be the winner)
- Hutch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10He didn't say that at all, he said that all of Afghanistan shouldn't be punished for what FEW extremists did.
- npacheco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9or maybe he felt like he wanted to slip through O'Rilley's childish tactics?
- reldren, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@samuraitux
Oh wait. Are you a student at Rensselaer Poly?
Nevermind then. That explains everything. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11glick expressed his opinions and fact that are provable and admitted by the United States government. Bill O'Reilly turns around and says "This kid supports the terrorists that killed his dad so he might as well be one." Yeah, I think only one of them makes much sense, but I guess if you're so set on Mr. O'Reilly you'll never be sane enough to find out.
- mcbarron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"name calling is childish too you know and thats what you have all been doing"
Yeah, because posting to the digg forums is so much like having a nationally televised cable NEWS show. - lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Most people would agree that O'reilly embarrassed himself in the video but it wasn't because he was "outfoxed". The kid just regurgitated some common rhetoric that he was obviously reading off a piece of paper. What O'reilly did was worse though, he made cheesy displays of sympathy for the kid's own parents, whom the kid obviously knew better than O'reilly. Really, Glick didn't have to embarrass O'reilly, he did it on his own.
- Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7oh, and one more thing Atomic1fire: The freedom of press _is_ the first amendment!
- aphexcoil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I'm a republican / conservative that enjoyed watching Bill O'Reilly in his earlier days. However, Bill is an extremely wound-up egotistical pathological liar. I gave up on his show long ago when I realized that he was so far right that he completely loses sight of the big picture.
As far as I'm concerned, people like Bill and Ann Coulter appeal to sensationalism and will envoke whatever twisted stereotypes needed to prove their own points. I often wonder if people like this have deceived themselves to such an extent as to not even see the real picture anymore. - machx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Man that kid has a lot of self control. Whenever I see crap like that I think of Lewis Black saying "someone should've just run in the room and punched him in the mouth!"
- j.carcinogen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7He did say that Afghanistan had nothing to do with the training of the people that killed his father but that Bush the elder trained the muhajadin.
O'rielly was wrong but Glick even said he prepared prior to the interview by watching interviews where O'rielly got upset so he appearently had intentions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is