Bill O'Reilly lies.

I've decided to include one more which I will present at the end. *** 1. O'Reilly wanted to boycott French goods because France was being too lenient on the Middle East. While Con managed to name a few French industries that may have been impacted, he never denies that Franco-American trade actually increased, proving that the boycott did not hurt the French economy. Moreover, the six month boycott of wine did absolutely nothing politically. In other words, the boycott was a complete failure. Hosting a news program called "The No Spin Zone" and boasting about it's prestige, we can assume that the host Bill O'Reilly was aware of the French policy not changing until a new president was elected. In other words, the boycott accomplished no political achievement whatsoever, yet B.O. still alluded to its success. Plus, even if my opponent proves that USA Today (Is that O'Reilly's trusted news source? Really?) shows changes in the French wine market, that in no way indicates a "success" by any means considering it didn't achieve any of the intended political goals. Nevertheless, the biggest factor here is that O'Reilly *COMPLETELY FABRICATED A SOURCE.* In an interview which he expects his audience to take seriously, on a show which he boasts does not spin any facts, the host literally just completely fabricated a FALSE and made up statistic from a NON-EXISTENT external source. The evidence I submit to prove this lie (not mistake) is that no such publication as The Paris Business Review exists, and as such, for O'Reilly to make up a false statistic in this false source shows he is not *misquoting* or misreferencing a source, but rather completely making one up. In other words, he KNEW he was saying something with no evidence (no evidence because he made up the entire statistic and source on the spot), and yet chose to deliver it as fact anyway. My opponent attempts to dodge this reality by saying there's no proof that he intentionally lied. The proof is the fact that every aspect of it was fabricated including his "source," and by nature of it's definition and purpose a source is supposed to be the proof and reference of delivered information. In other words, he lied about having proof (for his stat). The whole nature of this was just a blatant, inescapable lie. 2. By now it's become clear that Con's entire defense will be hoping the audience believes that O'Reilly didn't KNOW he was such an ignorant and misinformed person. In the Sunsara Taylor example, Con essentially alludes to poor Bill O'Reilly actually believing that most Americans wanted to continue the wars in the Middle East (despite it being very well known at the time that most Americans were against it, and O'Reilly works for a news station after all). Well, considering O'Reilly is such an avid reader of USA Today (hehe) then why wasn't he aware that according to a 2008 edition of the publication most Americans acknowledged the war being not worth it ( http://www.usatoday.com... )? Essentially I don't believe that O'Reilly didn't know he was making these "errors," but considering the strong character limits I will focus my space on the arguments where there is more proof of blatant lying based on direct contradictions and other things O'Reilly couldn't have "not known." I'll be forced to drop a few arguments including this one. 3. O'Reilly ranted, "CNN is supposed to be *the news* channel... Only Anderson Cooper at 10:00 covered this story! Nobody else! So all day long it wasn't news to cover an Army recruiter gunned down in Arkansas." The emphasis there isn't my own -- it's his. In other words, he passionately delivered false information. Con says he made the error of confirmation bias; that is, he took misinformation from a third party and assumed it as true. However, Con has offered no proof whatsoever that this is the cause of O'Reilly's assumption. Considering O'Reilly delivered a statement as fact, we should assume he'd done the research behind his statement. O'Reilly's boasted that he does all his research (see: Leno interview). Therefore, by O'Reilly's own declaration, we should assume that he researched his statement... and if he had, he would have known that CNN had reported something dozens of times the day earlier, and not just once as he had said. Either way it's very clear: he lied about doing the research, or he lied about what the research indicated. Both cannot be true. 4. O'Reilly claimed he only said "shut up" a couple of times. He's said shut up dozens of times. I've proved it; Con can't deny the physical evidence. Con's defense is to try to say O'Reilly meant "shut up" in different contexts, but has offered no proof that this is the case. As such, we have no reason to accept what O'Reilly POSSIBLY meant just as Con says we shouldn't accept what O'Reilly POSSIBLY knew or did not know. The hard, physical evidence is clear: O'Reilly lied about his usage of the term. Con's request for physical evidence has been validated. 5. Speculations about kidnapping and Stockholm Syndrome were made clear to be just that: opinions. O'Reilly assertively made an accusation and specifically denied another's request to limit his assertions to speculations. Plus, O'Reilly said that if he was wrong, he would "re-air the tape" which he never did despite covering the story after the true facts were revealed. 6. Con jumps through hoops to distract the audience regarding the clause of jail time in the health care bill. The lie I presented has absolutely nothing to do with the bill, but the lie that O'Reilly told. In his exact quote, he said that people at Fox had never said something, and said that they had done RESEARCH regarding whether or not anyone had ever said it. In fact they had said it, so that's the first part of the lie while the second part was lying about the research. Pro's entire defense crumbles due to O'Reilly's use of the word EVER, and that he denies that anyone at Fox had EVER said anything like that regardless of which version of the bill they were discussing. The physical evidence condemns O'Reilly in this case as well. 7. Dropping for characters. 8. Dropping for characters. 9. Dropping for characters. 10. Dropping for characters. 11. Dropping for characters. 12. Dropping for characters. 13. Dropping for characters. 14. O'Reilly essentially called for a boycott of Pepsi products because they used the rapper Ludacris in their campaign, and O'Reilly berated them for choosing a figure who represented negativity. However when people called for a boycott against Limbaugh's sponsors, O'Reilly flipped out and said that this was immoral and un-American. Viewer Lise Rousseau from Lafayette, CO e-mailed O'Reilly asking, "Mr. O'Reilly, imagine my confusion as I watched you criticize the protester for organizing the Limbaugh boycott. Last August, I heard you tacitly call for a boycott against Pepsi for hiring Ludacris. There is a lack of consistency in your rhetoric." O'Reilly responded, "First of all, I never do anything tacitly. I do things directly. I simply said I wasn't going to drink Pepsi while that guy was on their payroll. No boycott was ever mentioned by me." O'Reilly denied ever calling for a boycott several other times. However, not only did his own news network admit and report that O'Reilly called for the boycott, but a direct transcript from is show provides the physical evidence that he lied. He said: "I'm calling for all responsible Americans to fight back and punish Pepsi for using a man who degrades women, who encourages substance abuse, and does all the things that hurt particularly the poor and our society. I'm calling for all Americans to say, 'Hey, Pepsi, I'm not drinking your stuff. You want to hang around with Ludacris, you do that, I'm not hanging around with you.'" http://www.boycottwatch.org... / Out of characters.