Here's how an O'Reilly debate might go.
O'Reilly makes a number of totally relative and arguable declarative statements as being absolute fact then summates it with a conclusion as to how he is right
He then makes a number of factual statements, loosely associates the facts with his relative statements and hands the totally FUBAR'd situation to the guest for a 'response'.
Something like this.
"The sky is not blue, it's red. I mean, c'mon! The folks know that the sky is red. A number of scientists have concluded that the sky is red, not blue.
Now, you say that the sky is blue. Can you give any proof or support your claim in any way that the sky is blue, even though it's really red? Bear in mind that the sky, being red and not blue, is red."
The guy is a retard extraordinaire.