Next Monday: Dawkins v O'Reilly

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-04-19 09:49pm

Oh boy.

Which of course begs the question: why? This will all end in tears. O'Reilly can cut off the mike, steer the debate into ridiculously tangential territory, strawmander like a pro and his audience has already made up their mind. What will be in play is the reality that debating with idiots brings you down to their level where they beat you with experience.

We're talking the unwavering, not-so-few %30 that changes reality to fit the facts, like the 2004 voters that believed positively and conclusively that Iraq had WMD and links to AQ.

The optimist in me though sees the fact that it's a primetime slot for Professor Dawkins to try and work his magic directly to non-like-minded individuals. It should surely take magic though instead of reason cause even CNN's handling of this subject is laughable.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-19 10:01pm

I'm curious....under WHAT circumstances did Dawkins accept this? Because he has to know how this ends, unless he's never watched a single minute of the O'RF.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-04-19 10:18pm

First, he's going to scream like a maniac to try to bully him. If that doesn't work, he'll do what spc said and shut his mike off...

petesampras · Post by **petesampras** » 2007-04-19 10:39pm

Dawkins is obviously an important figure in the battle against creationist stupidity, but I can't help feeling the last few times I've seen him on TV that he's not quite as 'tough' as he used to be. I hope he does well, but the problem is that, to the general public, Dawkins is a 'champion' of evolution, when in actual fact there are probably many evolutionary scientists who could perform better in this kind of, probably very aggressive, argument. I hope I'm wrong and Dawkins kicks ass, of course.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-19 10:50pm

Even the most brilliant argument does you no good when you can only get a half-sentence in before O'Reilly interrupts you, and then cuts off your mike if you rudely try to interrupt his interruption by continuing your argument. And O'Reilly always uses the tried-and-true tactic of simply hurling countless horrible accusations, knowing that no matter how off-topic they are, the target will feel compelled to defend himself and his political affiliation because the accusations are so unspeakably pernicious.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-04-19 11:53pm

Dawkins could win simply by being imperturbable and endlessly polite. O'Really needs to get in shouting matches to puff himself up and to throw his targets off balance. But if the other person doesn't play the way he wants him too, he'd end up falling all over himself. Dawkins has to know not to rise to O'Really's baiting and let him make an utter fool of himself.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-04-20 12:26am

As much as I hate Geraldo, I liked their little exchange because he didn't back down. In fact, he started yelling as much as O Reily, and the whole thing looked like the circus that is was.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-04-20 12:29am

Darkins' biggest advantage in the world's ultimate "style over substance" venue is his refined British accent. He sounds like a BBC documentary.

Yokel on an Island · Post by **Yokel on an Island** » 2007-04-20 12:41am

Darth Wong wrote:Darkins' biggest advantage in the world's ultimate "style over substance" venue is his refined British accent. He sounds like a BBC documentary.

That could be a minus to the choir O'R is preaching to, sadly. I remember the one time Stewart made a joke about the British general he interviewed that when he tells you Iraq is fucked, it doesn't really sound THAT bad.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-04-20 12:59am

Geez, I don't know what Dawkins hopes to accomplish by doing this. I just hope he chooses his words wisely because he won't get that many with O'Reilly.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-04-20 02:11am

Hey look O'Reilly's arguing against theism on that page! And he's right, that IS the most true thing he's ever told anyone!

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2007-04-20 04:10am

Dawkings will speak with a calm voice and smile incredibly much, that's how I've seen him before on CNN. Maybe his only goal is to show how atheists are not loud, obnoxious people that are full of themselves. Hoping to get out an argument or two which may or may not get a few people thinking. Dawkins is a lot more about open dialogue, than some here seem to realize. And he knows that simple repition of ideas can make them appear more reaonable and less "fringe" over time. That's partly how the right wing machine moved the mainstream closer to the extreme right.

Likewise I don't think O'Reilly will try to intimidate Dawkins with loud yelling. Remember the Jon Stewart episode? It will likey be mostly tame and boring as that one. O'Reilly knows his viewers and their views on religion and atheists, he knows that simply letting Dawkins say the things he usually says, will make him seem lunatic to his viewers already, so he'll stick with making a few condescending remarks and looking down on him.

Well, that's what I am expecting at least.

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-04-20 12:36pm

We may not be able to count on O'Lielly for much, but in Dawkins' defense he is quite able with glib soundbites, for better or for worse, and is reasonably able to transmit the gist of a point when under duress. At least perhaps Olbermann can rebuttal on behalf of Dawkins, even if Keith is religious.

bz249 · Post by **bz249** » 2007-04-20 12:41pm

Well, the old wisdom says that never debate with an idiot, because you have to decrease to his niveau... and he will defeat you with his experience.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2007-04-20 12:44pm

I think that Dawkins is attempting to make progress (as little as he can with O'Reilly's viewers) just by coming off as a random nonthreatening British dude. I really don't know, though.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-20 12:46pm

Pick wrote:I think that Dawkins is attempting to make progress (as little as he can with O'Reilly's viewers) just by coming off as a random nonthreatening British dude. I really don't know, though.

Maybe he's trying to show the fence sitters how irrational O'Reilly is?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2007-04-20 08:44pm

I would say that the reason Dawkins is going to go on O'Rielly is that anything else would be preaching to the choir. The very point is to get in the faces of the people who least want to hear what he has to say.

Also, it's easy to disarm O'Rielly by being eternally polite and reasonable with him. If he can't make the other guy look like he's being impartial and unreasonable, he's toothless (Check out the couple of times Sam Harris was on, O'Rielly stayed subdued and polite all through both encounters, even though Harris was presenting an entirely secular view). Remember also that Richard stayed calm and patient in the face of Ted Haggard, and you all know you would have hauled off and punched him.

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2007-04-21 03:00am

Wow, somebody is analysing an argument from O'reilly and is asking whether O'Reilly is a closet atheist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCdSyhlzBPg

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-04-21 03:53am

R. U. Serious wrote:Wow, somebody is analysing an argument from O'reilly and is asking whether O'Reilly is a closet atheist:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCdSyhlzBPg

Uhhh...

General Schatten wrote:Hey look O'Reilly's arguing against theism on that page! And he's right, that IS the most true thing he's ever told anyone!

Talking on that video which is in the first video.

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2007-04-21 04:08am

That's what I get for not clicking the link in the first post. I wasn't aware the video was there.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-04-21 06:46pm

I think Jane should debate Falafel Boy since she's closer to his intellectual level and covers much of the same material.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-04-23 07:16pm

Bumping as a 1-hour-to-go reminder.

I still can't help but feeling extremely ambivalent. Getting to this point is progress in and of itself, that much I realize (or at least I'll take that on a matter of faith

) but if Dawkins is arguably the most famous atheist spokesman in existence, the potential for a step backwards just seems to outweigh any forward.

That being said, this should be interesting.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2007-04-23 07:44pm

SPC Brungardt wrote:Bumping as a 1-hour-to-go reminder.

I still can't help but feeling extremely ambivalent. Getting to this point is progress in and of itself, that much I realize (or at least I'll take that on a matter of faith ) but if Dawkins is arguably the most famous atheist spokesman in existence, the potential for a step backwards just seems to outweigh any forward.

That being said, this should be interesting.

Richard will do fine. I think he'll stay away from the complex arguments in favor of rhetorical points, like 24 talking heads do all the time. If O'Reilly wants to throw down, I trust Dawkin's intellect to recognize the tactics and respond accordingly.

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-04-23 08:04pm

Falkenhayn wrote:Richard will do fine. I think he'll stay away from the complex arguments in favor of rhetorical points, like 24 talking heads do all the time. If O'Reilly wants to throw down, I trust Dawkin's intellect to recognize the tactics and respond accordingly.

I sincerely hope so.

Personally, I'd honestly love to see Wong on the show discussing that issue. He's obviously got a vast amount of experience debating the subject, and we could be guaranteed he wouldn't let much get by him. There's others here who would be undoubtably just as effective too...if there's one thing SDN does do well it's hone debating skills and applied logic.

They might not approve of the typical flaming tactics though.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-04-23 08:08pm

Bubble Boy wrote:Personally, I'd honestly love to see Wong on the show discussing that issue. He's obviously got a vast amount of experience debating the subject, and we could be guaranteed he wouldn't let much get by him. There's others here who would be undoubtably just as effective too...if there's one thing SDN does do well it's hone debating skills and applied logic.

They might not approve of the typical flaming tactics though.

No matter - Mr. Wong should simply bring his own microphone, and make provisions to have it plugged into the feed with controls separate from O'Reilly's. At that point, it'd be like skeet shooting with Buicks.