Bill O'Reilly is neither fair nor balanced.

The first argument my opponent gives is from a video, which he linked in his last round. In this video, Bill and 2 others are discussing problems surrounding a joke about Hispanic governor Richardson passing the guacamole to Clinton. Understand, first, that Bill O'Reilly explicitly states that he sees nothing wrong with saying that Richardson was asked to pass the guacamole to Clinton. He acknowledges that this is not a problem. However, I will explain what he does take issue with. There were a group of people who were upset at this remark, and openly showed their feelings about it. Depending on what type of person you are, you might either apologize for hurting their feelings, regardless of whether they should have their feelings hurt, or to simply not apologize because "you shouldn't have hurt feelings over this." Bill is the first type of person here. He expects that because someone's feelings were hurt, the offender will issue some sort of statement, which they apparently did not. They took the second stance, and completely ignored the issue. While you might disagree with what Bill O'Reilly's stance is here, it's hardly something he can be called unfair or unbalanced over. Second, my opponent includes a quote from Michael Smerconish. This quote, for those who didn't read the previous line, was not Bill O'Reilly's. Therefore, it has absolutely no bearing on how fair or balanced Bill O'Reilly is. However, I maintain that Smerconish was also being fair and balanced in this quote. First, he mocks Mormonism and Scientology, which are indeed two very easily mocked religions. A reader might at first think that he's solely picking on these religions, which could be construed as unbalanced, but he goes on to mock his own religion. From the above quote: "I'm thinking we have certain street smarts emanating from our belief in the Good Book that's given us the ability to filter out obviously bogus beliefs. After all, we know that the earth was created in seven days, and that the son of its creator was born to a virgin mother. Indeed, a star over Bethlehem led three wise men to the scene of Jesus' birth, and, 30 years later, he walked on the water of the Sea of Galilee. If only the Mormons and Scientologists would take the time to read those stories - and with them learn about the great flood that Noah survived by building an ark and loading two of each animal onboard, or the drowning of Pharaoh's army after Moses parted the Red Sea - they'd surely come to their senses over the obviously fictitious lore surrounding L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith." First, he says that the bible gives Christians and Jews the ability to detect bogus beliefs. And then, in an obviously satirical way, he shows just how wrong that statement is. In fact, his overall message here is that we should NOT be judging someone based on how bogus their beliefs are, since all religions have some sort of ridiculous lore. I do not see how this could be construed as unfair or unbalanced. Perhaps my opponent simply did not notice the obvious satire? Either way, they were not Bill O'Reilly's words, so my opponent must have been quite desperate to use that as evidence. One more round. So far, we've seen one instance of Bill being fair and balanced, and none of him being otherwise. And one of a guest host being fair and balanced, as if that was relevant. Perhaps my opponent would like to try and swing the tides in his favor this next round?