Bill O'Reilly Is Not A Combat Veteran

I thank my partner for his efforts thus far. Entering into the Fourth Round, I will repeat my purpose for instigating this contest: To ridicule Bill O’Reilly for seeming to entertain the idea that he might be able to pass himself off as a battle-scarred veteran of war. We were privileged, I feel, to witness his mentally toying with the notion, and it’s abrupt dismissal as O’Reilly realized that it was an untenable fantasy. The actual resolution was simply to agree with O’Reilly that it was all an overstatement in need of an immediate clarification. I was, and still am, happy and surprised that anyone might bother themselves to challenge this argument. It seems that almost any perceived insult towards O’Reilly will be defended against, truth be damned. In debate, a common tactic that one will see used frequently is the “presupposition,” which is a statement of fact or an argument that is assumed, but not demonstrated. A textbook example of this is: “When did you stop beating your wife?” (This statement presupposes that the target ever beat his wife in the first place.) Another example might be: “I have shown that the resolution is easily negated, and my opponent presented no new arguments in the previous round.” (Presupposing that the resolution was negated at all…) I note that my partner lamented a supposed neglect on my part to present new arguments in the preceeding round. Rebuttals are a normal part of debate, and are often relied upon in lieu of presenting new arguments (I am informing whoever will listen.) Answering challenges by offering rebuttals can advance an argument, which is why I thought it appropriate to defend my resolution instead of forming new arguments. I do not see any changes to my argument that have become necessary over the course of this debate, and I am more or less forbidden from presenting any such new arguments in this round, as there is insufficient space for them to be addressed properly by my partner. Therefore, my final argument remains pretty much intact. I will modify it just a bit: Final Argument: Bill O’Reilly was not lying when he claimed never to have served in the military. My partner has not presented any evidence to disprove Bill O’Reilly’s claims never to have been a combat veteran, and so we have good reasons to score this debate accordingly. Furthermore, I have presented some data that supports Bill O’Reilly’s claims never to have served in the military. These data points have not been shown to be in error during this debate. Please refer to R2-3 for examples of this. It is my hope that this argument will carry the day. Most readers will have noted that I presented a very obvious statement of fact, which is more difficult to refute than a traditional logic chain. Not very stimulating; which is why I am rather glad that my partner seemed so insulted by the whole exercise. His outrage pleased my troll heart a great deal, and I hope that it proved entertaining to our judges as well. I want to thank our readers and especially those who might consider rewarding our efforts with a thoughtful vote. Please vote for me, and please be kind; this week has been eventful at my office – finding even a few moments for presenting any arguments at all was a herculean task.