The information that Wikipedia provides is overall more reliable than information provided by Fox News
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The more precise version of Oromagi’s debate. Is it still winnable? Will Fruit Inspector destroy me?
Reliable means trustworthy.
Con provides much more sources --> point to con
The arguments basically can point to Con as he successfully rebuttal all and basically Pro didn't do rebuttal --> point to pro
spelling same
Grammar same
Conduct same
First I will say that I did not enjoy the read of this debate any more than I did the earlier fanfare/debate involving Oromagi and Fruit_Inspector [I will not weigh-in on my own debate with seldiora relating to this topic] for the simple reason that these debates pit one entity [Wiki] against another entity [FoxNews] which do not share objective existence and purpose. At all. To claim that they both distribute information is about as relative as claiming that both dragonflies and helicopters fly. So what? Therefore, I find the attempted comparison absurd. That said, I can still present an unbiased vote, in spite of my personal disdain for Wiki, and my growing disdain for FoxNews. I judge on the merits of the arguments, as I should; let these other concerns be damned.
Argument: Pro presented the evidence that Wiki has a low opinion of its own reliability, the measuring stick of this debate, and concludes that Wiki is not reliable. Pro attempts to explain that the Wiki statement, being 9 years old, for one, makes it a subjective, loose statement. Con successfully argues that the syntax of the Wiki statement is "absolute." This matter is argued through the balance of rounds, but Pro never successfully overcomes the Con rebuttal. Con is correct; the Wiki statement on their reliability is absolute and objective. Con's only BoP was to show that Wiki is not reliable by academic definition, and succeeds, and the presence of FoxNews in the debate seems relatively dismissive. Con also successfully argues that Wiki's method of verifiability does not meet academic standards, made worse because Wiki does not even reveal the names of "editors" in order to be independently verified by third-party observation. Con successfully argues that with that verification, Wiki's reliability remains suspect. Points to Con
Sources: In R3, Pro states, with a source, that "transparency is inherently related to trust," but Con has already defeated the point in R2 be declaring ands citing the many many instances of fraudulent and just plain wrong information on Wiki, which slays the transparency/trust relation relative to Wiki. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: tie.
Thanks for voting.
Once I'm done with my Blitzkrieg, I'll see.
wanna try voting? It's not really philosophy, but it's pretty logical.
*bump*
"I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side."
Yeah, you do. Reliability is far too abstract. Without outlining the exact metric on which you choose to make the comparison, the substantiation of your position becomes that more difficult.
I guess the premise is too difficult to prove as is. I need a more stringent topic to win my side.
What did you think?
I know. And I'll make sure to highlight that distinction.
thanks. Hopefully, you won't be able to trash me in Fruit's argument that wiki is not a reliable source of information at all, relative to research. Providing information is subtly different from being a source of information.
Good argument. I'll address the argument some time later tonight, or some time later tomorrow.