If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Fox News hosts challenge Jon Stewart to a debate. This should end well   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 112
    More: Interesting, Fox News, Eric Bolling, Meow Mix, New Hampshire Union Leader, Bob Beckel, cojones, chalkboards  
•       •       •

4742 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



112 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 08:18:00 AM
Shouldn't they be debating people who have direct influence on policy, rather than the host of a news satire and topical comedy show?
 
2013-04-29 08:34:50 AM
Oh Johnny boy, the derps, the derps are calling
 
2013-04-29 08:35:20 AM
Oh dear.
 
2013-04-29 08:42:43 AM
When he did that to Tucker Carlson, we got the Daily Caller.  While I'd enjoy seeing Stewart do it, is it really worth the price?
 
2013-04-29 08:42:57 AM
And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by both "sides" for air time.
 
2013-04-29 08:51:33 AM
Televised on Comedy Central. Yes, there will be slime showers.
 
2013-04-29 08:55:24 AM

Pocket Ninja: And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by both "sides" for air time.


Speaking of which, Hannity get waterboarded yet?
 
2013-04-29 09:12:21 AM
Dear John Stewart: The following usually applies for when creationists ask scientists to debate them, but it is not limited to that use. It's a good rule of thumb. If this statement is true, then your best course of action is to ignore those clamoring for a debate: "A debate between us would look good on your resume and bad on mine." I believe this is applicable to this situation. Enjoy.
 
2013-04-29 09:14:20 AM
He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.
 
2013-04-29 09:16:55 AM

ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.


Pretty much this.
 
2013-04-29 09:17:29 AM
They want to debate a satirist.
 
2013-04-29 09:17:33 AM
hope Jon enjoys wrestling pigs, as that would be all it's worth.
 
MFK
2013-04-29 09:17:43 AM

ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.


Exhibit A: the first 2012 presidential debate
 
2013-04-29 09:18:41 AM

ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.


Jon Stewart (and his team of writers) make stuff up as well. A debate between those two would essentially devolve into an exercise of logical fallacies and whatnot.
 
2013-04-29 09:19:28 AM
Is the guy from Fox aware that Jon Stewart does actual research on facts?
 
2013-04-29 09:21:42 AM
This is going to be the best thing on TV in quite some time.
 
2013-04-29 09:22:34 AM

Frank N Stein: ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.

Jon Stewart (and his team of writers) make stuff up as well. A debate between those two would essentially devolve into an exercise of logical fallacies and whatnot.


By make stuff up, I assume you mean the puns on the graphics for each bit. Everything else he does is pretty much reacting to actual video of stuff that actually happened... on video.
 
2013-04-29 09:22:45 AM
As already mentioned, winning a debate with someone so disconnected from reality is impossible.  That's the lesson we scientists have learned from Creationists whackjobs.
 
2013-04-29 09:22:56 AM

Pocket Ninja: And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by "both" sides for air time.


I think you quoted the wrong word. Stewart's not going to debate them - they don't want debate, they want Stewart as "liberal boogeyman" and they want to keep saying that all Muslims are an imam's fart away from taking up arms. Debating Stewart changes nothing there.

Anyone who thinks all Muslims are evil won't be swayed by Stewart's f@g-talk, and everyone who lives in reality already knows that eradicating Islam isn't the answer any more than eradicating the pro-life movement is.
 
2013-04-29 09:23:29 AM
Because a professor saying  "Only about 10 percent of Muslims are fundamentalists, and only 1 percent of that 10 percent have a radical understanding of Islam"equals

There are an estimated 2.5 to 4.5 million Muslims in America.

Using that professor's estimate, that would mean there were 2,500-4,500 "radical Muslims wanting to kill Americans," which is a bit less than "hundreds of thousands."
 
2013-04-29 09:24:10 AM

lilbjorn: Is the guy from Fox aware that Jon Stewart does actual research on facts?


That would require research by the guy from Fox, so no.
 
2013-04-29 09:25:01 AM

I like the part where the slump shouldered woman realizes she's on camera. And just for fun...


Jon Stewart vs Crossfire
 
2013-04-29 09:26:40 AM

Pocket Ninja: And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by both "sides" for air time.


Oh you, and your cynicism. I can assure you Fox news pundits believe every word they say, and in no way are intellectually dishonest. And as for Stewart, he only picks on Fox because they finally need to be exposed as a right wing shill, and it has nothing to do with being excellent fodder for ratings.
 
2013-04-29 09:26:41 AM

Frank N Stein: ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.

Jon Stewart (and his team of writers) make stuff up as well. A debate between those two would essentially devolve into an exercise of logical fallacies and whatnot.


And you've provided us with a stellar example of such fallacies.
 
2013-04-29 09:26:51 AM

Cythraul: Shouldn't they be debating people who have direct influence on policy, rather than the host of a news satire and topical comedy show?


Actually they should be reporting on people who have a direct influence on policy. These stations (Fox, MSNBC etc) are supposed to be news reporting organizations, not a lobbying arm of one party or the other. Of course, what should be and what actually exists are each not even in the same ballpark.

The only thing that actually is appropriate is that The Daily Show is a news satire program and Fox is an oft satirized news program, so I suppose there is some reason for this to happen.
 
2013-04-29 09:27:00 AM

Not too long ago there was a group of people we were sure was going to hurt us.  Even though many were US citizens we were so scared we imprisoned them based on how they looked.

ask this man about that.

s16.postimg.org


/be afraind
 
2013-04-29 09:27:08 AM

DarnoKonrad: hope Jon enjoys wrestling pigs, as that would be all it's worth.


Something tells me he wouldn't enjoy that at all...

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump
Ipromise you that I'm much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz - I mean Jon Stewart @TheDailyShow. Who, by the way, is totally overrated.


You know - because JUDEN.
 
2013-04-29 09:27:54 AM
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167   Should Science Debate Pseudoscience?
Do debates against pseudoscience advance the cause of science, or do they do more harm than good?

tl;dr Podcast Version -  http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4167.mp3

Highly Relevant.

You may know the facts John, but they can just make up new lies on the spot.

It has been argued that scientists have a huge advantage in debates because we have the facts on our side. Well, so we do, but that's not an advantage at all. Rather, it's a limitation. The audience members who are not scientists can rarely discriminate between facts and pseudofacts. The pseudoscientist has an unlimited supply of sources and claims and validations. He can say whatever he wants. If compelling rhetoric would benefit from any given argument, he can always make that argument. Pseudosciences have typically been designed around compelling rhetorical arguments. The facts of science, on the other hand, rarely happen to coincide with the best possible logic argument. Having the facts on your side is not an advantage, it's a limitation; and it's a limitation that's very dangerous to the cause of science should you throw it onto the debate floor.
 
2013-04-29 09:28:13 AM
mediaserver.pulse2.com
The last time this seemed like a good idea.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-04-29 09:28:19 AM
On paper, this is a mismatch.

You'd need about 10 or 12 Fox News employees to make it even close to fair.
 
2013-04-29 09:29:02 AM

Cheron: Not too long ago there was a group of people we were sure was going to hurt us.  Even though many were US citizens we were so scared we imprisoned them based on how they looked.

ask this man about that.

[s16.postimg.org image 214x314]

/be afraind


Counterpoint: if Filipino terrorists ever attack America, we can preemptively lock up Michelle Malkin. She'd be fine with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Defense_of_Internment
 
2013-04-29 09:32:09 AM
ohpleaseohpleaseohplease...
 
2013-04-29 09:38:21 AM

Cythraul: Shouldn't they be debating people who have direct influence on policy, rather than the host of a news satire and topical comedy show?


One of them is the host of a news satire and comedy show...the other one is Jon Stewart
 
2013-04-29 09:39:25 AM
What a waste. People are already completely clueless about who the key players are, and how they influence public opinion. We really don't need more "Hey, look over there."
 
2013-04-29 09:41:14 AM

rufus-t-firefly: DarnoKonrad: hope Jon enjoys wrestling pigs, as that would be all it's worth.

Something tells me he wouldn't enjoy that at all...

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump
Ipromise you that I'm much smarter than Jonathan Leibowitz - I mean Jon Stewart @TheDailyShow. Who, by the way, is totally overrated.

You know - because JUDEN.


That's funny, coming from someone who still won't answer questions about his Pongine heritage.
 
2013-04-29 09:44:04 AM
oh good, John, the comic, will battle a news person with his funny jokes, his cute vocalizations and his mugging for the camera.
 
2013-04-29 09:45:12 AM

IAmTheTagTeamChampions: ohpleaseohpleaseohplease...


heh heh.... I was thinking the same thing..


On another note, JS sure ruffled Fox's feathers this time. Generally, they might mention a JS thing, but this time they went all in for the rebuttal (if you can call it that). If you notice, they are, as usual, long on emotion and short on fact. Only when they get to "clarify" what they were supposedly talking about do they trot out numbers that they found to support their babbling.

But this the new Fox schtick for the near future - beating the war on terrorism drums at every chance. I guess Benghazi got a little stale and now the neo-cons need a new scare to advocate for given that Israel is probably not going to hit Iran, Best Korea has pretty well settled down and Syria is pretty much still a no-go. Gotta have something to frighten the snowbirds to open their checkbooks.
 
2013-04-29 09:46:34 AM
How often does a heckler "win" at a comedy act?  1% of 10% of all hecklers?
 
2013-04-29 09:48:06 AM
Eric Bolling is such a tough guy. We should all be impressed by his masculinity.
 
2013-04-29 09:48:11 AM

Pocket Ninja: And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by both "sides" for air time.


Hasn't this been done at least once? "Bullsh*t Mountain," and all that?
 
2013-04-29 09:48:51 AM

Rapmaster2000: [mediaserver.pulse2.com image 367x271]
The last time this seemed like a good idea.


Carlson fancied himself as a heavyweight "serious" pundit before he was eviscerated on Crossfire.. This lot are just rabble rousers.

Rocky 3 comes to mind with Bolling as Clubber Lang

/except I liked Clubber
//and Carlson certainly aint Apollo Creed
///bad analogy is bad
 
2013-04-29 09:49:43 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: oh good, John, the comic, will battle a news person with his funny jokes, his cute vocalizations and his mugging for the camera.


Yes he'll up against the intellectual giant called Eric Bolling. The same guy who thinks Obama's birf certificate is suspicious.

News person.
 
2013-04-29 09:51:26 AM

ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.


That was pretty much how his interview with David Barton went. Barton appeared knowledgeable and reasonable, but if you actually fact-check it, it's all bullshiat. However, Barton is a professional con man, and has way more experience than your average Fox News host (not that I really watch them to know). Stewart does have his own team to help him prepare, so it can be done.

Even so, I don't really see the point, because it's not about the facts; it's about the audience. The Fox News viewer will declare that Fox won, and the Daily Show watcher will declare that Stewart won.
 
2013-04-29 09:54:42 AM
He did debate O'Reilly. Nothign happened with that.
 
2013-04-29 09:55:11 AM

Diogenes: Pocket Ninja: And of course this is all an honest call for open debate and not merely a publicity stunt that will be exploited by both "sides" for air time.

Speaking of which, Hannity get waterboarded yet?


He now claims he never said that.  You're obviously mistaking him with...uh, uh...CHARLES GRODIN!

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/31/1518741/sean-hannity-wa te rboard/?mobile=nc
 
2013-04-29 09:55:47 AM
Stewart should should agree to the debate and arrive prepared with dozens of charts and graphs illustrating how Fox News is owned by Muslims, written by Muslims, hosted by Muslims, etc.  Simple charts 'proving' that whoever he's debating IS actually Muslim and that Fox is purely Muslim propaganda and, oh, by the way, all Jews are actually Muslim and so forth and so on... just mountains and mountains of derp, so that he can fight derp with derp and have a hearty chortle in the process.  Challenge Fox to 'prove' him wrong.

I would find THAT quite amusing.
 
2013-04-29 09:56:19 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: oh good, John, the comic, will battle a news person with his funny jokes, his cute vocalizations and his mugging for the camera.


He sure doesn't sound like a news person on that there talking head show of his. Former newspeople getting paid a nice salary to appear or host shows giving opinions about the news are no longer news persons. See: O'Reilly, Bill.
 
2013-04-29 09:57:00 AM

RminusQ: Frank N Stein: ChaoticLimbs: He should decline. You cannot debate a person who can make up their own "facts" and demand that you answer for them. You cannot "win" a debate like that unless the audience can see the lie happen, and can see past the liar's obstinate and aggressive confidence.  The liar always appears confident, and the reasonable man appears flabbergasted. A witness to such a debate will conclude that the reasonable man doesn't know what he's talking about, and the liar is winning.

Don't do it.

Jon Stewart (and his team of writers) make stuff up as well. A debate between those two would essentially devolve into an exercise of logical fallacies and whatnot.

And you've provided us with a stellar example of such fallacies.


To be fair, both sides are bad.

Strange how this excuse only pops up when it is time to knock down anyone not on the right. It is almost as if people use it not to show that both sides have their faults, but to instead distract people's attention away from whatever screw-up the GOP did.
 
2013-04-29 09:58:13 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: oh good, John, the comic, will battle a news person with his funny jokes, his cute vocalizations and his mugging for the camera.



Bitter conservative shill like typing detected.
 
2013-04-29 09:58:49 AM
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report