One comedian, one pundit and a lot more substance than the presidential race.

“The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart faced off against Bill O’Reilly of Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” in a political debate Saturday at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium.

Moderated by CNN journalist E.D. Hill, the debate, billed as “The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium,” was available for streaming to anyone who wanted to pay the $4.95 price tag. Half of the proceeds are being donated to charity. 

Unlike the presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney last Wednesday, this showdown featured the kind of unabashed sincerity lacking in today’s political atmosphere.

O’Reilly, equipped with signs featuring slogans such as “Debt is Bad,” “Bush is Gone” and “Buy Your Own,” came out swinging, lambasting Obama for blaming former President George W. Bush for today’s economic woes and claiming that 20 percent of the country are slackers who feel entitled.

“We are spending an enormous amount of money on 20 percent who, for whatever reason, [say] ‘we’re just not gonna cut it, we’re not gonna make a living, we’re not gonna really do anything,’” O’Reilly said. 

The Fox News pundit also referred to Georgetown Law School graduate and women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke as “the poster person for the entitlement society.”

Stewart, using an electric platform to raise himself to O’Reilly’s height, didn’t pull any punches either. 

“My friend, Bill O’Reilly, is completely full of shit,” Stewart said. 

Stewart claimed the country faces difficulties solving problems because much of the populace “has created an alternate universe in which the issues that we face revolve around a woman from Georgetown who wanted birth control … covered on her health insurance in the same way Viagra is covered to many others.”

“I call this alternate reality…bullshit mountain,” the comedian said. 

It was the beginning of a friendly, banter-filled discourse between the two entertainers that was undoubtedly more authentic — and less uptight — than what we usually hear from Capitol Hill.

Topics ranged from foreign policy to the allocation on tax revenues toward certain policies, such as public media and contraception coverage.

“Give me the money back for the Iraq war, and it’s rubbers for everybody on me,” Stewart proclaimed. 

O’Reilly retorted, saying that services (specifically PBS) should have to compete in the marketplace and, with $16 trillion in debt, “You’ve got to start to cut.” 

“Should Exxon be able to compete on its own?” Stewart asked. “Because we give to them and other companies like it … over $260 billion every year.” 

O’Reilly began to hit his stride when criticizing the economic woes facing the country during Obama’s presidency. 

“Since the president has been in office, $5,000 the average worker has lost in pay … and gas prices have more than doubled,” O’Reilly stated, adding later that if President Obama is re-elected, we’ll have a $20 trillion debt. “The job of the president now is to get the debt under control, and you’ve got to cut stuff.”

Already, the difference between this debate and the presidential debate earlier in the week was clear.

There was no pandering here, no vague promises and no empty rhetoric. Each man simply offered an honest representation of his position.

When entitlements came up, the fundamental moral dilemma plaguing each side of the political divide made itself apparent.

“The mindset is that if I can gin the system, I’ll do it because it’s easy,” O’Reilly said, arguing later that Obama has made it easier to apply for entitlements. “They advertise on the radio for food stamps,” he declared.

And Stewart offered the clear and unadulterated counterpoint.

“Why is it that if you take advantage of a tax break and you’re a corporation, you’re a smart business man, but if you take advantage of something that you need to not be hungry, you’re a moocher,” Stewart replied. 

More issues were covered, and at the end, questions were answered from audience members and Internet users. 

However, the important point to take from this event is its authenticity.

This wasn’t an intellectual showdown like what may be found between leftist and conservative academics. Neither debater could be called an expert in much of what they discussed. 

But it did offer an earnest — and highly entertaining — discussion between two different political belief systems.

And that’s precisely what we need more of in this country.