Replies

No, I think you're wrong. I agree O'Reilly should have (and I believe could have) kicked some major a** in his debate with Michael Moore, but he probably had agreed to a civil debate with him. He had the opportunity to go full out and attack Moore several times, but that would have taken him off track from the debate, which is what he kept on trying to bring Moore back to. Moore created the typical liberal argument... "well how about this? (*thinking to himself* uhoh, he has a logical answer to that, I wasn't looking for that)" -changes subject completly- rants raves- repeats himself silly-... sound familiar? yeah, its repeated by Moore, Hillary, sharpton, etc... and there's no real way to argue them because they don't make sense... and I think O'reilly did a good job showing that he didn't'.

yeah, its repeated by Moore, Hillary, sharpton, etc... and there's no real way to argue them because they don't make sense... and I think O'reilly did a good job showing that he didn't'.

He let Moore control the debate. He was not skilled enough to take back control. He was well aware of how Moore debates, he uses the same tactics every time, and was not able to counter them. For that reason alone, he lost. If you are constantly on the defensive, the facts become secondary because it is impossible to get your point across.