Bill O'Reilly Is Not A Combat Veteran

Point 1: Bill O' Riley is often in a figurative form of combat. Bill O' Riley absolutely has been in combat, in fact his entire career revolves around it. Take the example of Bill O' Reilly in an argument with Bill Maher: . http://www.youtube.com... You can see him as he interrupts and attacks his arguments in every way he can think of. Going off the idea that combat is a fight, struggle, or controversy between two parties he absolutely was in combat with Bill Maher. If you use the idea that combat is any sort of a fight between two opposing parties with differing ideas, O' Riley is absolutely a combat veteran in a figurative sense. Point 2: Bill O' Reilly did not mean literally that he had been in the military and was only making an anecdote. By saying "If I were. .. " it's obvious that Bill did not mean literally that he had been in the military, he was simply trying to make some point about torture or something along those lines, the clip wasn't long enough for me to discern exactly what. But the point is that he did not literally mean that he had been in a unit of some sort he was making a rhetorical statement. Point 3: Bill O' Reilly did not misspeak when he said that he had been in combat I'm rather surprised you didn't figure this out yourself. .. He did not say that he was in a unit, or part of the military. He justified his own statement by saying he had been in danger during his time reporting in Central and South America. This is absolutely true since he was in danger at this time, it's possible he may have exaggerated exactly how much but he never said he was in the military. He simply said he had seen combat, which he had during his time in Central and South America. Criteria for Victory: My opponent seems to be under the impression that he can create conditions of victory in the second round of debate. He is wrong. I am debating the resolution: "Bill O' Reilly is not a combat veteran" Through my three points I have demonstrably proved that O' Reilly did not misspeak in that statement, that he is often in figurative combat, and that he has been in literal combat. Every aspect of the resolution has been successfully negated. Even for your criteria I have negated the majority of them. Criteria 1: Did Bill O' Reilly over speak when he claimed to have seen combat? No, See points 1-3 they all show that everything he said in that video were demonstrably true. Criteria 2: Does Bill O' reilly posses the type of hard-won wisdom of our fighting men and women? -This is a pointless criteria that has to do with O' Reilly's character. This debate has nothing to do with character. But again, it doesn't matter. The criteria were thrown in during second round and have nothing to do with the resolution. Rebuttal: Point 1: I point out that Mr. O'Reilly admits in the audio clip that he has never served in any military, thus meeting one of the criteria for victory. It is fairly clear that he was being overdramatic, and quickly retracted the claim. As for actually serving, Bill O'Reilly fled America during the Vietnam War, by obtaining a Draft Deferment, and (to be extra safe) also by living in England during this time. . http://lickingcalcutta.blogspot.com...... Cowardice seems to be a common trait among Super-Patriots and war mongers, but I digress. -Other then being a general Ad Hominum attack on O'Reilly for his cowardice and pointing out the fact that he was not literally in the US army my opponent has utterly failed to make a real argument that concerns the resolution. I agree, he did not serve in the army, and perhaps he was being overdramatic, but in the end the debate is about the resolution, which you didn't even touch on. Conclusion Bill O'Reilly immediately retracted the statement, and admitted that he has never actually served in the military. -Again, totally unrelated to the resolution, combat has little to do with the military, I have disproven the original resolution.