In retrospect, I would feel it not only crude but also ignorant to proclaim one as the all out winner if that was one?s goal. Both attempted to present well-rounded arguments, yet again and again, both fell short.
As someone stated, politics manages to bring out the worst in us because it attempts to have us ?pick sides.? In this case we have a choice between Moore and O?Reilly, both of which we see constantly in the press, and both products of the press and the American people.
I view Moore as a liberal-leaning individual who has said something that I have agreed with on many occasions. Unfortunately, I find that he habitually defaults to posing a single unanswered and rhetorical question in his debates in an attempt to create drama or irony. In my opinion, this serves no positive debate-related purpose except to give the simple-minded folks more of the partisan rhetoric they crave.
I view O?Rielley as a conservative-leaning individual who has said something that I have disagreed with on many occasions. Unfortunately, I find that he habitually defaults to posing a single and rhetorical unanswered question in his debates in an attempt to create drama or irony. In my opinion, this serves no positive debate-related purpose except to give the simple-minded folks more of the partisan rhetoric they crave.
Similar, isn?t it?
Both have a habit of including weak arguments for the sake of attention and drama. This serves not only to weaken their overall argument, but to enthrall the ignorant masses. Without these habitual ?shortcomings,? as we see them, they would never get airtime. Still, I see dozens and dozens of responses from people who have somehow made themselves oblivious to this.
For Moore, the ?Fallujah/?death of your child? ? argument that he continually brought up is a recent example. Quite obvious should be the fact that he is on TV, posing a worst-case scenario in an attempt to damage O?Reilley?s immediate credibility and come out on top. He may have had a point concerning how it is easier to question the welfare of others compared with our own, but that was just a consequence of his wording which I must say he failed to take advantage of properly. In addition, he may have started to address the underlying issue of the consequences and sacrifices of the war based on misjudgment or even alleged misconduct, but he defaulted to a pandering O?Reilley?s credibility instead of completing his argument. He was indeed after credibility with that line of questioning, and not in search of enlightenment as the simpleminded tend to believe. Still, I find it troubling that only a few of those who saw the video understand this, especially by their own voluntary admission.
However, it is not impossible to see the points that he began to argue but failed to follow through with.
Those who argue on the side of O?Reilley are no better. While he is certainly no ?Ann Coulter? in terms of outright aggressiveness and having a lack of sensibility, he continually champions the ?fair and balanced,? habitually attempting to denounce anything that he disagrees with, only to replace it with bias personal opinion and conservative rhetoric. His constant generalizations serve to ENTRALL more than to inform, and from my chair, serve only to diminish the potency of his arguments as a whole. For the most part, I find that his arguments are at most one rebuttal deep.
My thoughts concerning the issues:
Position and accountability
a. Bush may have received faulty intelligence, but that does NOT ABSOLVE him of accountability for his ACTIONS. He was elected to command, and did so knowing that he would have to take on the responsibility and accountability that came with the job. He made the decision, acted on it, and should not be immune from the liability that he has to his constituents.
b. The President not only alleged, but paraded as true the idea that Iraq had WMD. In fact, it seems as if this was not fact, but an allegation that has yet to be verified. Whether or not WMD exist in Iraq to the extent that the President alluded to, it is quite reasonable for doubt to arise concerning evidence that was spoken of as if in hand. Those who say otherwise are either defending their party to nonsensical ends, or know something which most of us do not. There may very well be a massive stockpile of WMD in Iraq, but with so much time passing without reaffirmation, the people have a duty to question his motives during a time when our troops are fighting to the death to defend reasoning which until now, still remains educated speculation at best.
c. Saddam, although perhaps a supporter of terrorism, is not by any means the man we were after, if justice was truly our intention. Accusing him of supporting terrorism while failing to accuse farther into the Middle East is not just short sided, but provides a plausible pretense for a subversive act. This is not an accusation of conspiracy aimed at the President and/or his staff and/or the military. This is merely an attempt to show how weak and questionable their argument is.
Preemption vs. prudence vs. recklessness
a. The President government may use the excuse of preemption for his decisive action, but that in no way invalidates the benefits of prudence. Prudence however, is generally of greater importance [with exception] when compared to preemption when it comes to intelligent international diplomacy in our time. We, as developed nations, have a duty to remain prudent for the sake of prolonging peace, a state of existence that humanity has suffered for so long to momentarily achieve. We have a right, and, by the demands of our own American heritage, a propensity to question decisive action that threatens peace. This is not meant to be an accusation of fault on behalf of the present administration or its head, but merely justification for questioning its actions. If actions were taken that serve to demonstrate not only haste and carelessness, but intentional abuse by this administration, then the defense of preemption should certainly be challenged. Settling solely on preemption as the basis for a war has proven to result in even more dead citizens, which is why the issue of adequate justification becomes even more controversial. As Moore hinted at but did not elaborate, how do you expect to justify more death to achieve peace without irrefutable evidence?
Let us remember that it is irrefutable fact that United States did indeed lose 3000 or so souls on September 11th 2001, just as it should be an irrefutable fact that it was necessary that thousands more die in retribution.
P.S.
I know that I did not discuss every point that I feel they attempted to make, but I felt that these were the most important arguments that were not made.
Facebook
Twitter