QUOTE(NoSex @ Jan 25 2009, 01:26 PM)
hitchens, honestly, is nothing spectacular. i haven't heard him, ever, say anything that a million people hadn't said before him, more eloquently & more poignantly. but that's against the point...
i'm simply saying that the tone of the interview was atypical. it was a bad example if you wanted to show what "dissenting voices" look like & or are treated like on bill's show.
It wasn't "against" the point but beside it, and of all the things you can direct at Christopher Hitchens, bearing repetitious and tired views isn't one of them, or else he wouldn't be frequently mislabeled as either a staunch conservative or a committed leftist on the programs he grants interviews to. Hitchens rules.
So then---how coincidental that out of the myriad of examples, I just happened to choose the elusively rare one. Even if that was the exception instead of the rule, that would be all I need to say, "There are instances of debate to the point where I can actually identify what words are being enunciated, which is more than the other show", since it only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference. But now I wonder how far my luck can go.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4P7lDIvbA
Wasn't very hard, especially since I don't particularly like or watch Bill O'Reilly a whole lot.
interview vs. forum style debate. not the same at all. further, it doesn't really matter, i was just drawing an analogy for the sake of argumentation, it's not designed to be scrutinized on its factual merits.
You first brought up any notion of a formal debate, and Ted Haggard wasn't an example of that. Dawkins interviewed him face-to-face in the documentary after a church service.
Also, anything that must be granted a pass on the examination of its "factual merits" isn't a real point.