Would you debate a right-winger on television?

[KingFlorez]

I mean people like O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity. For myself, I say bring it on! I'd love to smackdown a right-wing nutcase on television.

[Zynx]

1. Yeah.

Only problem is that they make me so angry I would have a hard time containing my anger.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I don't think so

because television is so slanted in favor of the right wing. Ed Schultz talked about this on his show yesterday (I think it was an archived show) how he went on Fox and Friends and was not given time to respond to questions-a right wing talk show host was given the last word before a commercial break with the host promising Ed would be able to respond when they came back. When they did come back, she said, "I lied." and proceeded to talk about something else. I fear if I tried to debate these people such tactics would be done to me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. exactly...if all things were equal including airtime and the program

was mediated by a neutral party, none of the RW'ers could hold up, but never debate them on their turf nor their station....that was the worst thing when Malloy went on Hannity and walked off and they continued to editorialize about him after he walked off...it looked bad.

[rzemanfl]

3. In a parking lot, but not on TV. n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. I don't have the patience anymore. I'd just end up hitting him. n/t

[MadisonProgressive]

6. Everytime they said something false

I'd probably just shout "FUCK YOU NAZI" or something, so I wouldn't help our cause much.

[droidamus]

7. Debate?

I would find it hard to debate somebody that is willing to lie, make up facts and scream over the top of my statements. Though I did see a woman, sorry can't remember her name, that was very good at stopping those tactics in their tracks. In the end the cons are not interested in facts and debate they just want a forum to spew their talking points and any attempt by the liberal opposition to express their points must be controlled , ended or talked over.

[trogdor]

18. Use the Bugs Bunny method

Wingnut starts screaming over you. You start using gestures. Smirk, thumb in direction of other panel, finger circling side of head (bitch is crazy). Little drawings of a braying jackass, a screw and baseball, etc. The attention is then on you instead of the nonsense being spewed in the other panel.

Let the wingnut continue to rant until the moderator tells him/her to shut the fuck up. Use the rant against the wingnut as described above.

[B Calm]

8. Ask Mike Malloy about the time he was on Fox

[Tsiyu]

9. Yes I would

and I have debated some lug heads.

[tularetom]

10. Only if some neutral third party

had control of the debate. Most of the "debates" you see now consist of the wing nut host and some nut job guest shouting over the token "liberal" they bring on to belittle and look like a wuss. I think I'd rather "debate" one of them in a bar.

[noahmijo]

13. Yup that's how it works when a wingnut controls the show

If you act polite and civil you're the "weak" liberal.

If you step up and refuse to be shouted down by lies and you attempt to cut through the bullshit the wingnut is spewing then you're a far leftist communist radical.

[Arianrhod]

11. Only if there were strict debating rules

and a vigilant, nonpartisan moderator to enforce them.

These people are lying twisting snakes. Most of the debate would be spent unraveling their unethical tactics--as every scientist who ever agreed to Duane Gish's invitation found out.

[Finder]

12. What you see on TV is not real debate...

and emotion is a debate killer. Since most of the arguments put forward by O'Reilly, Coulter and ilk are based on logical fallacies, they could never hold up in a true debate. They know this. It is like the difference between high school wrestling and the WWF. Both are called wrestling, but...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Only if they ...

Only if the right wingnut were not allowed to put their fingers in their ears and sing, "I can't heeeeear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" :rofl:

[iamjoy]

15. Maybe Tucker Carlson

I know he can be jerk, but he's not as bad as some of the other right wing pundits. He gets excited sometimes, but doesn't seem mean or angry. Besides, I will always have a bit of a soft spot for him for a several reasons 1) the way he interacted with Hillary Clinton when she "surprised" him by coming on CrossFire. 2) In 2004, after talking about how if the Democrats were true to our principles Al Sharpton would be our nominee, Carlson actually went to West Africa with Sharpton who was trying to help with the mess in Liberia. 3) I saw an episode of CrossFire where Janine Garfolo was "guest hosting" in the Left Wing seat. It was before Air America and she was obviously flustered, but he wasn't trying to shout her down. 4) He seems to be more of a Libertarian. Sometimes I think they are a little bit nuts, but at least they are consistent. 5) He is not a Republican or Bush "yes" man.

Carlson seems to really believe good people can hold bad ideas, whereas some believe that all Liberals are evil.

So, it would have to be Carlson or a carefully moderated situation.
Or, maybe Bill Maher, although he doesn't really moderate very well, he more joins in the fray. Still, it seems all in good fun.

[stepnw1f]

16. Right Wingers Can Actually Debate?

No kidding....

[skids]

17. Debate? Not possible with RWers. Berate? Damn yeah! n/t

[andino]

19. Yeah I would...

I would agree with everything they said. Then at the end I'd just say, "Man, you guys have great points. And as we all know, you guys were right on just about everything including the WMDs, being greeted as liberators, the oil paying for the war, gas prices going down, etc..... As a matter of fact, I can't think of one damn thing you guys have been wrong about. Well, maybe just about everything, but outside of that you guys are batting 1000"

[shenmue]

20. I don't know if I could take it...

Only if you let me go on there with a bottle of something 80-proof, and a baseball bat.

[hwmnbn]

21. In an impartial arena like a bar, hell yes........

It isn't even a fair fight and here's why. We know all their talking points and if we've done our homework, can debunk them immediately. We also know their RW radio tricks, so we can expose those tactics when they try them.

We don't have talking points, we have facts. No one can debunk facts.

The ultimate talent in debate is to use their own words to hang your opponent. If you can demonstrate they're either factually wrong or lying, demand an explanation. If they can't come up with one, checkmate & case closed. Never accept "Fuck you, you're wrong" as a rebuttal.

If you can do this in simple brief sentences EVERYONE can understand, time to collect the beer bets. :toast:

[LWolf]

22. Under certain conditions:

Equal air time. No shouting, interrupting, drowning out, derision, name-calling, etc.

Back up assertions with evidence.

Some guarantee that questions or topics aren't slanted in any way.

A neutral moderator.

How many rw nutcases are likely to step forward under those conditions?

[Lefty48197]

23. Is punching allowed?

.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. No. They don't employ logic or civility.

I wouldn't debate them in any situation unless the moderator prevented their rude bullying postures.

[troubleinwinter]

25. Frank Zappa did. 1986.....

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-frankzappaoncrossfire.html