|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ren546
Joined: 17 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Seeing as this thread got hijacked by someone who actually thinks that Bill O'Reilly could "win" (unreal), I decided to abandon ship, lest this person actually show up and ruin the day.
I think we're just gonna show up at the bar early afternoon and see if they'll play a later version of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Seeing as this thread got hijacked by someone who actually thinks that Bill O'Reilly could "win" (unreal), I decided to abandon ship, lest this person actually show up and ruin the day. |
Just curious: Did you also think that it would be "unreal" for Romney to win a debate against Obama prior to their first debate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
O'Reilly is gonna slaughter Stewart.
O'Reilly deals with facts in his show while Stewart's show is to just make people laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waynehead
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Location: Jongno
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm curious to see how much of a "debate" this will really be. Stewart & O'Reilly have gone from being tense adversaries to being happy squabblers, I wouldn't be surprised if they work together a little beforehand to make sure they put on a good show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah good point. It's all about ratings.
When their next show takes place (Monday) viewership will be more (my guess). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| ...Stewart's show is to just make people laugh. |
Well I would hope so. Otherwise his network, Comedy Central, is terrible at what it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's why O'Reilly will demolish him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ren546
Joined: 17 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| That's why O'Reilly will demolish him. |
You know, I really hope you're trolling, but in the event that you're not, I just find it hard to believe that there really are people with functional brains who think that Bill O'Reilly is capable of having an intelligent conversation, nevermind a debate. I mean, even some of the most right wing people I know will admit the fact that O'Reilly's incompetent in this respect.
If we're talking about the entertainment/humor factor, well yes, Stewart works for Comedy Central, but O'Reilly works for Fox News, which is hardly a "news" network by any stretch of the imagination.
I still want to see this while drunk, and I will, but I just don't think I could ever sit there in the same room with people who think that this is actually a debate between two equals, or others who think that Bill O'Reilly is a better at debating the "facts" than Jon Stewart. I would probably end up huddled in a corner, rocking back and forth, wishing the world would just black out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ren546
Joined: 17 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Seeing as this thread got hijacked by someone who actually thinks that Bill O'Reilly could "win" (unreal), I decided to abandon ship, lest this person actually show up and ruin the day. |
Just curious: Did you also think that it would be "unreal" for Romney to win a debate against Obama prior to their first debate? |
Yes because it is unreal. Like unicorns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| That's why O'Reilly will demolish him. |
That's one way to look at it. I like to think either Stewart knows enough facts that someone thinks he can hold his own against O'Reilly's facts, or someone thinks O'Reilly is just as big of a clown as Stewart is. Either way, should be entertaining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpiralStaircase
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="actionjackson"]
| Zackback wrote: |
| Either way, should be entertaining. |
And that it was. Both men put on quite the show. Bill showed restraint and Stewart went mild on the silly. Stewart makes a lot more sense (to me) but Bill 'O' was on task.
The entire BS mountain bit was dead on. Search for it if you missed it. Even if you disagree with the politics, you will still find it amusing.
Also, it seems Bill is not without a sense of comedic timing. See his reference to Stewart's "alzheimers pandemic' in the question round
Well worth my 5 dollars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The entire concept of "winning" a debate is lost on the television viewership. To genuinely win a debate is a technical achievement: your arguments must genuinely and effectively refute those of your opponents while advancing your own positions, using only data which can itself be defended as legitimate. That's not really what happens in modern political debates, though, which are largely just softball Q&A sessions with very little real back-and-forth argumentation, and no real boundaries on telling outrageous lies. TV viewers tend to judge who "won" based on charisma, not substance.
A real debate -- one where vigorous standards of evidence are applied to claims made, and actual persuasive reasoning is employed in refuting your opponent's position -- is almost the antithesis of modern American politics. These "debates" are not debates at all, they're the verbal equivalent of beauty shows, and I'm being generous in applying the "verbal" descriptor, because I strongly suspect a large portion of the audience could make up their mind regarding who "won" with the volume turned off, so fixated are they on the non-verbal cues being displayed, and when what is said is actually taken into account, the greatest weight is most often put not on substance, but on zingy, "There you go again," style one-liners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpiralStaircase
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
The entire concept of "winning" a debate is lost on the television viewership. To genuinely win a debate is a technical achievement: your arguments must genuinely and effectively refute those of your opponents while advancing your own positions, using only data which can itself be defended as legitimate. That's not really what happens in modern political debates, though, which are largely just softball Q&A sessions with very little real back-and-forth argumentation, and no real boundaries on telling outrageous lies. TV viewers tend to judge who "won" based on charisma, not substance.
A real debate -- one where vigorous standards of evidence are applied to claims made, and actual persuasive reasoning is employed in refuting your opponent's position -- is almost the antithesis of modern American politics. These "debates" are not debates at all, they're the verbal equivalent of beauty shows, and I'm being generous in applying the "verbal" descriptor, because I strongly suspect a large portion of the audience could make up their mind regarding who "won" with the volume turned off, so fixated are they on the non-verbal cues being displayed, and when what is said is actually taken into account, the greatest weight is most often put not on substance, but on zingy, "There you go again," style one-liners. |
Well said. Is your frustration due to semantics or principle?
The problem I see is this:
A) These �debates� are said to focus on the undecided voter
B) At this stage in the game, an undecided voter is an ignorant voter (or at the very best, an indifferent one).
C) An ignorant voter will not respond to the type of debate you are suggesting
Romney and Obama are just doing their jobs� pandering to the absurdity that is the United States of America.
Sit back and enjoy the circus. Makes for great entertainment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorf
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While both parties are full-on silly circuses in their own ways, at least the Dems aren't actively trying to bring back the dark ages. Republicans are just cartoonishly evil these days and only getting worse.
Jon brought his 'B' game, but then again even his 'B' game looks like a home run when you're going up against a doofus shill like O' Reilly. Stewart had him skewered from the first moment he started on his BS mountain analogy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SpiralStaircase wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
The entire concept of "winning" a debate is lost on the television viewership. To genuinely win a debate is a technical achievement: your arguments must genuinely and effectively refute those of your opponents while advancing your own positions, using only data which can itself be defended as legitimate. That's not really what happens in modern political debates, though, which are largely just softball Q&A sessions with very little real back-and-forth argumentation, and no real boundaries on telling outrageous lies. TV viewers tend to judge who "won" based on charisma, not substance.
A real debate -- one where vigorous standards of evidence are applied to claims made, and actual persuasive reasoning is employed in refuting your opponent's position -- is almost the antithesis of modern American politics. These "debates" are not debates at all, they're the verbal equivalent of beauty shows, and I'm being generous in applying the "verbal" descriptor, because I strongly suspect a large portion of the audience could make up their mind regarding who "won" with the volume turned off, so fixated are they on the non-verbal cues being displayed, and when what is said is actually taken into account, the greatest weight is most often put not on substance, but on zingy, "There you go again," style one-liners. |
Well said. Is your frustration due to semantics or principle? |
My concern is that it symptomatic of a national character that is other than and inferior to what I would prefer.
| SpiralStaircase wrote: |
The problem I see is this:
A) These �debates� are said to focus on the undecided voter
B) At this stage in the game, an undecided voter is an ignorant voter (or at the very best, an indifferent one).
C) An ignorant voter will not respond to the type of debate you are suggesting
Romney and Obama are just doing their jobs� pandering to the absurdity that is the United States of America. |
This is largely correct: the status quo derives from the character of the general populace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
