Instigator
Points: 10

President Trump does not understand what "Fake News" is.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 28
Description
I look forward to the coming debate and I hope my opponent will be at least somewhat interested in having a real debate. The Proposition will be attempting to prove that President Trump does not, in fact, understand the issue of fake news and he is having a negative impact on a fundamental part of the United States. The Negation will be attempting to prove that President Trump does, in fact, understand fake news and that he is not having a negative impact on the United States. The first round will be open to questions and concerns regarding the debate, be it definitions or formatting. Best of luck.
Round 1
Published:
It's a pleasure RationalMadman, I've seen your debates around the site and you handle yourself quite well. I'm afraid however I can't offer much in the way of properly sized debate. I'm looking for something a bit cleaner and concise in the contentions, I sadly lack the time to provide such long and thorough arguments. I plan on keeping to the main points supported by a few sources, per contention. I'm more than confident you will be able to debate against such a format but I wanted to let you know in advance in case you were looking for something else. If you have any questions in terms of definition please provide them next, after that, the debate can start. Thank you in advance for taking on this debate. 

Published:
I am actually one of the only high-tier debater on DDO and here who is famous for not giving a single damn about structure. I am the bruce lee of debating, I am water. If I find it necessary to ramp up my aesthetics in layout and structure, I'll do so but really I prefer to just rant an essay. The only reason it seems 'structured' is you are seeing nice layout because the quote function on this site is sexy AF.


I am going to make an extremely OCD-level-defined full resolution here and explain how I came up with the hybrid via links (click the link, see what it defines and trace into the written resolution I make how I pieced it in:

Donald J. Trump, while being President, has not sufficiently displayed enough evidence via speech and direct actions to demonstrate or suggest the necessity or advisability of perceiving the intended meaning, significance, explanation, or cause of information that is published in newspapers and broadcast on radio and television about recent events in the country or world or in a particular area of activity that is intended (and succeeds in enacting its intention) to alter, manipulate, or treat the true 'news' so as to give a spuriously genuine appearance.

I will now be more exact on the definitions by splitting things up but first want to define 'spurious' to understand the meaning of 'spuriously':

outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities

So, Trump is defined as President Donald J. Trump and this debate is specifically about his presidential-self (meaning if he was ignorant pre-presidency on the matter of fake news it's not relevant to the debate but if he's 'forgotten' that has to be proven as we would assume he would maintain previously attained understanding). 

To understand is not all the debate is about, this is about indicated understanding or indicated misunderstanding. At first, I have to prove (yes Con has initial BoP) that he understands Fake News but Pro designed this debate to go first and clearly wants me to only use R1 for definitions and clearing the dynamics of debate up so I won't debate yet as it's four-rounds and he's have still an extra middle round of new-points-new-rebuttals in a free-form debate. We can't really know what goes on in someone's head but we can ascertain clues to it.

Fake News (which Trump does understand the definitions and impact of, according to me) is:
information that is published in newspapers and broadcast on radio and television about recent events in the country or world or in a particular area of activity that is intended (and succeeds in enacting its intention) to alter, manipulate, or treat the true 'news' so as to give a spuriously genuine appearance.
I already said the rest and linked the rest but wanted to make clear what 'fake news' is and extract it from my elongated resolution.

Over to Pro now.
Round 2
Published:
Huh, you bring up a good point about the free round and I apologize for that. When setting up this debate I simply just choose 4 because it seemed like a good middle ground choice. I offer to forfeit this debate and set up a new debate with the same resolution. As for your long-winded and clearly obtuse definition, is there any chance you could offer a shorter and more practical definition. If you would like you can message me such a definition so we don't have to waste rounds trying to figure out a simple definition. 

Published:
President Donald Trump on Monday called the "fake news media" the "true enemy of the people." It wasn’t for the first time. And it probably won't be the last.

Funny, I don’t feel like an enemy of anything, particularly. Healthy eating, maybe. But the president keeps saying it.

Here is what Trump said in two tweets Monday morning:

"There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame of Anger and Outrage and we will then be able to bring all sides together in Peace and Harmony. Fake News Must End!"

Much has been said and written about the timing of the president's tweets, coming so soon after a suspect was arrested in a bomb plot whose targets included CNN offices and after the mass murder of Jewish people in a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Much has been said and written about the tone and tenor of Trump's rallies, in which he often verbally attacks his perceived enemies, including a nightly put-down of the press. It's a constant drum beat and beat-down.

There are plenty of false stories out there
What you don't see discussed very often is the possibility that, at least about the "fake news" part, Trump is right.

Really?

Yes. He's just wrong about what's fake.

There have been plenty of false stories about the migrant caravan making its way north to the U.S. border, for instance.

When asked about a specific negative comment (or comments) he made about the British Prime Minister, he replies the following:
"Well maybe I'll go first because I didn't criticise the Prime Minister..."
"Unfortunately there was a story that was done which, y'know, was generally fine but it didn't put in what I said about the Prime Minister..."
"... and fortunately we tend to record stories now so we have for your enjoyment if you'd like it but we record when we deal with reporters; it's called Fake News and we solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument(s)."

Why would he be threatening the reporter lowkey by saying 'come check the recording' if he was the liar there? Even if it is a bluff, he is blatantly displaying comprehension of what Fake News is and how to refer to it in a speech when dealing with a reporter that themselves is referencing another reporter's Fake News.

I leave you with a Tweet JUST OUT YESTERDAY, 29th October 2018:

There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent, reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true Enemy of the People, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news accurately & fairly. That will do much to put out the flame...

Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Trump is aware what 'fake news' means.
Added:
--> @Earth, @Ramshutu
easy ff
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
A crap, sorry about forfeiting that round. I completely forgot about this debate (If we can even still call this a debate) none the less the mistake is on me. I was going to argue that Trump simply calls news fake when he disagrees with it, and that doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is actually false. I was going to point to some reports and studies done on the accuracy of news reporting and so on and so forth. Feel free to argue against that if you would like in the next round, but again I did forfeit the round and you can choose to just extend your arguments, it's up to you.
Instigator
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
In Round 2, Pro forfeited the debate.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con had more sources than pro (pro having none) and even though con forfeited one round, pro forfeited two
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct for forfeit - arguments and sources as pro offers no arguments at all.
Given multiple forfeit rounds, lack of any arguments by pro, and the apparent near-concession offered by pro- I count this as a full win for con
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I didn't see much of an argument on either side. But Con followed through on the whole debate and tossed in a few sources, while Pro forfeited the last few rounds without explanation. Conduct and sources to Con.