http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8OhiLU7cU

This interview between the geneticist and philosopher Richard Dawkins and the political commentator Bill O'reilly highlights the benefits of using rhetoric and the negative aspects of the lack of rhetoric within a debate. The debate revolves over the question of the existence of the Western idea of a God, with Dawkins taking an atheistic stance and O’reilly taking a theistic stance. Dawkins embodies the ultimate logical thinker while reinforcing his sound arguments continually throughout the interview. On the other hand, O'reilly seems to view the interview with an ad hominenperspective in which the two are opponents. Throughout the interview, O'reilly's position is repeatedly refuted by Dawkins but the interviewer mainly sees Dawkin's arguments as an attack on his personal character rather than the objective propulsion of a dynamic argument. O'reilly seems to maintain this mode of thinking over the course of the whole interview. This mode of thinking reveals the lack of a sense of positive rhetoric in which truth is discussed with an open mind and answers are sought. Rather, this causes the debate to become more competitive which causes the two men to become more detached from one another and a progressive end is not achieved. In terms of ethos, pathos, and logos Dawkins seems to have achieved all three aspects of qualitative rhetoric while O’reilly falls short.

At one point early on, the dialogue plays out like this:

O’REILLY: I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism, because it helps me as a person -

DAWKINS: Ah, that's different. If it helps you that's great. That doesn't mean it's true.

O'REILLY: Well, it's true for me. See, I believe -

DAWKINS: You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?

O'REILLY: Yeah, absolutely -

DAWKINS: It's got to be either true or not true.

O'REILLY: No, no. I can't prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine and mine alone, but you can't prove to me that Jesus is not. So you have to stay in your little -

DAWKINS: You can't prove that Zeus is not. You can't prove that Apollo is not.

O'REILLY: I saw Apollo, man, he was down there and he was not looking good.

This short dialogue reveals how significant the difference in argumentative style is between the two. O’reilly seems to dance around the questions and statements given by Dawkins while only challenging his “opponent” rather than his own conceptions of truth. If people in society eliminated this antiquated media culture influence on debates, then the world would become more progressive and the truth would be sought more often and more openly. This interview is an example of what humanity needs to distance itself from and learn from in order to have any hope of real progress.

Bill O’reilly sucks.