Gwydion said:
No he didn't, he was using them as a rhetorical tool and if Moore had given him an opening he would have jumped all over Moore and been a stubborn idealogue just as you say Moore was. He tried to use those two "facts" as an opening gambit and Moore denied him that opening. Win = Moore.
Does no one grasp the fact that these guy's superficial "facts" are only jumping off points to verbal beat-downs? Facts to them are just tools they use to create an opening to use their own personal brand of sophistry and rhetoric to persuede the listener they are right, or to make their oppenent seem in the wrong. These guys are in the entertainment business, they are not rational and logical debators. Specifically, their business is making other people look like fools in order to persuade others that their painfully simple and loosely defined "ideology" is correct. In this context, Moore made O'Reilly look like the bigger fool by causing him to make several idiotic statements such as saying that "it's not a lie if you believe it to be true" and that he would sacrifice his life if it meant eliminating the Taliban or securing Fallujah, among other things. If you don't think that anything O'Reilly said was stupid or give any weight to the fact that he was kept on the defensive by Moore the entire time, then yes, Moore is a stubborn idealogue and O'Reilly is a shining beacon of truth and reason who was abused by a man with no interest in facts or rational debate. From a rhetoric standpoint, however, Moore won. If anyone wants to supply any evidence of how O'Reilly actually won that argument, instead of claiming that I'm simply cheering Moore on, feel free.
what else you can expect from Fox 
(maybe "ultra-stupid-pseudo-conservative and right-tendending" discribes it better than "populistic")
