The Debate

The purpose of the Jon Stewart v. Bill O’Reilly debate was to present the issues from the 2012 Presidential race to people who would find this form of debate more entertaining. Its motives also include satirical humor, from both players, to strike down one another’s ideas and immediately strike back with your own argument. Bill O’Reilly audience is generally an older crowd so he used more obscure references and even used the cards as a point of focus for his arguments. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, used his talent as an actor and stand up comedian to improvise on the subjects that were brought up because his audience watches comedy central and connects more with humor.  Both parties did become at fault with a misunderstanding or misuse of the information they had memorized. The issue that Bill O’Reilly misunderstood was that most people on welfare do not like being on welfare, nor do they find it an alternative to working. He is making a generalization because there are those few individuals who take advantage of the system and its benefits and know how to play that particular field in a crummy way. This is a small percentage of people within this system.  Jon Stewart's fault came when he misunderstood the difference between our debt and our deficit. This is an example of a non sequitur because he had the information on the deficit correct but failed to have a conclusion that followed the premise of a deficit. I believe the debate was worthwhile because it let people who may not have been following the elections see the issues presented in an understandable way. Debating is necessary and we all do it in everyday life whether we mean to or not. Debating happens when choosing between options.