random($foo)

I think one would have to concede that the casual observer would come away from this thinking O’Reilly had won decisively. That he did it through bluster, bullying and sophistry is beside the point — he was more effective. And Krugman, alas, looked like he was nervously eyeing the studio door, half-expecting O’Reilly to loose it all and take a swing at him. I don’t fault Krugman. That’s just the state of (what passes for) discourse.

also:

Anyone suggesting that O’Reilly somehow ‘won’ either have a different definition of the term than I do ar some pretty low standards for argument. Krugman can be faulted for ever deciding to debate this guy in the first place (especially because he is so soft-spoken), but at least he tried to provide arguments. The standard exchange went something like this:

Krugman: tries to make a point, offer some form of evidence in support for the point. Cut off By O’Reilly after about two sentences.
O’Reilly: offers some type of retort, generally in the form of ‘everyone knows that’s wrong. Your sources are all lying partisans.’ Then goes on to attack Krugman in the worst ad hominem fashion. Krugman passively waits for the child to finish or start debating like a reasonable person. Alas, this never happens.

What’s funny to me is that O’Reilly himself seems tio distrust evidence on principle (and certainly cultivates this attitude among his viewers). If they are trying to offer sources to support their claims, they must be skirting on sophistry.