Instigator / Pro
11
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#638

CNN IS FAKE NEWS

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

So this is mainly a tribute to the disproven lies of "russia collusion" that came to a sad end for libtards a couple days ago. WhAt A sHoCk!

I am arguing CNN is fake news. The main reason is they claim to be unbiased when they clearly are bias AF, but also i will present some other reasons like the Covington kid, etc.

CNN: Trump made a typo on Sri Lanka saying millions of people dead. Imagine if he gets the big stuff wrong.

CNN generally thinks 300 dead is "little stuff"

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

If it protects minority's so much than again, explain how the smaller states almost have no voice at all and the stronghold states almost have no power.

This is why midwest states and stronghold states almost get no representative at all. Literally everything single state gets thrown aside and the only states that actually get representation are the swing states.

I do not know of a good alternative to this problem yet, although as of right now i'd prefer a well regulated popular vote to the electoral college since in that system nobody gets silenced and everyone gets a voice.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

It is based on population so while it still allows voices to be heard from farmers in Nebraska for example, those minority voices do not overshadow the more populated states. Every state counts. Conservatives in California are outnumbered by socialists, but again it does protect other minority voices because it is only a certain amount of delegates per state. Would you have an alternative to both systems if you believe they both silence voices?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

The electoral college silences more than it voices. For example conservative voters in california almost have no voice at all, or Democrats in texas.

Secondly the electoral college puts too much power into the hands of the swing states. Why do you think the majority of candidates don't bother visiting stronghold states too often and instead focus all of their attention to the swing states?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Our country has never been a democracy yet is the best in the world. I prefer a democratic republic because then if it is a democracy it is mob rule, which would turn into a dictatorship. Electoral College protects minority voices while at the same time letting majority be heard, but not to the extent they overshadow everybody else. It isn't an oligarchy, half of the people like Trump in our country. Good thing we don't have you running the laws or else the U.S. would be a disaster.

Guess you are against a democracy. Guess you would prefer a monarchy or a dictatorship. Don't worry about it the US is already an oligarchy so it's almost there.

-->
@David

>> There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate

I already addressed this in comment 138. I said: "He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate." This was for the voter both an issue of sourcing/evidence and argumentation. The vote is borderline, but I do not believe there is a clear-cut case for removing it.

-->
@David

He didn't say how they were conspiracy or unreliable. He generalizes the websites as consipracy, but does not show how the actual sources given were conspiracy or unreliable, which is what he should do.

-->
@bsh1

In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.

There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate

The only thing I see that he didn’t do which is required is Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. There’s no discussion on that impact

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

He pointed specific examples of sources that were conspiracy and unreliable, not just a generalization. Because of that the vote is fine.

-->
@bsh1

I still stand by my statement he is not justifying sources. I dropped it after you said it doesn't matter whether the voter addresses the actual sources or not. A rule change I propose is making the voter address the reliability of the sources cited, not the website behind the sources. And that is very reasonable. I said he is lying because he said everyone of my sources were conspiracy theorists. If I voted on your debate and said your source wasn't reliable because it is fake news and a leftist neo-nazi website, would you accept that vote?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Rule changes aren't indicated at this time. The rules are not there to ensure that all votes are "good," but merely to curb the most egregious kinds of failures voters can commit. In that respect, the standards constitute a floor, not a ceiling--a bare minimum--of what a vote must do.

Besides, you're shifting the goalposts. At first you allege that the voter wasn't properly justifying sources. That allegation was incorrect. Now you allege that the voter was "lying." These are not the same objections. That you are changing your objections to overcome my responses to them suggests your issue is more about the verdict that the voter reached and less about the RFD itself. That's a dispute properly left to you and the voter to navigate, and is not the legitimate purview of moderation to review.

-->
@bsh1

If that vote is allowed to stand, you need some rule changes to prevent blatant lies.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>> he was talking about the argument, not sources.

He was talking about both.

>> He does not expand on the conspiracy claim.

The rules do not require him to expand on this claim in-depth. What he has is sufficient to meet the standard.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Our country was never founded on democracy and never has been a democracy. Corporations don't own the country. Explain.

-->
@bsh1

He does not expand on the conspiracy claim. Alex Jones didn't write the article, and the voter fails to explain how they are conspiracy theorists.

When he was using anecdotal, he was talking about the argument, not sources.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic

So you are against democracy and for corporations owning the country. Good to know.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Your vote will stand, but I believe it was bias. I am not going to prove it because it wouldn't get it removed.

Some people are voting against me in a bias manner and I have got them removed, particularly the clear bias of vsp19.

>Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.

Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>> He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate

He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate.

>> The voter does not directly evaluate one source.

The voter directly evaluates several sources. The voter made these evaluations when they wrote: "PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites."

Your definition of source is overly narrow. "Source" does not necessarily mean the underlying data, but at a minimum means the reporter of the information. CNN is a news "source," even if it is not itself the underlying data it reports.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.

Biased doesn't mean I was wrong and you would have to prove that impacted my vote so much that I was lying just because I have something against whatever idea you hold.

>>people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better

I did which is why you people are voting against you and I just don't like the ideas you hold so you lose both ways.

>>Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.

Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.

You are comparing the election to a debating site where the number of conservatives and liberals vary as a minute percentage of the 130M people in our country. Plus, people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better, so your point is nonsensical.

Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.

-->
@bsh1

"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about."

Rules: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate" He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate.

"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support." The voter does not directly evaluate one source.

He attacks the websites for being "conspiracy theorists" but does not look at the actual articles cited, which is what the rules say, sources, not the website. If I voted and said someone in the debate using Fox News is not a good source because it is very right wing, that does not address the actual sources, which are reporting information, but rather the overall website.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Was mine unfair?

>>No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes

Sad really you would have thought since Trump won the election there would be more people on your side. Guess numbers don't lie. Hillary had more votes but Trump still won because of the electoral college. Oh well.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

The voter surveyed those arguments that they judged to be the main arguments, met all 3 criteria for awarding sources, and justified the conduct points. It may or may not be a good vote, but it is not a removable one.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

And do far in this debate I have had 5 votes removed and 2 not removed, one of which is borderline. That's a pretty high success rate. I report votes I deem unfair or not up to voting standards. No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes.

-->
@bsh1

vsp19 only addressed 1-2 argument points. For his sources, he does not explain up to the site standards and addresses only his opinion about the website as a whole, not the specific article's i cited.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Wow you really are not liking everyone voting against you.
Sheesh you even reported mine. Virtuoso already cleared this and bsh1 is more lenient so I doubt you can get your way.
Do also report votes that have you winning in order to not be hypocritical.
Sure I can't show proof but I have a hunch you can't take it when you are wrong.

-->
@vsp2019

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@PythonCee

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PythonCee // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct.

>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited one round. The contender used better arguments.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@PythonCee

If you are a new member read the voting rules in CoC. This isn't DDO.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Please do not message or tag us in a comment every time you wish to report a vote. Simply click the flag icon, and we will attend to it as soon as we can.

-->
@vsp2019

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: It is pro's responsibility to define his terms at the beginning so CON can come argue against them. As PRO did not define their terms, it slowed down the conversation. CON defined their terms and followed with reliable arguments to back their position. PRO misrepresented CON's position multiple times and got angry when CON pointed that out.
PRO has violated the Code of Conduct by advertising a youtube channel, by forfeiting a round and by being disrespectful towards CON the duration of the whole debate.

>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter still has not completed any of the three steps necessary to award argument points. Second, there is no effort made to justify awarding sources points. These points must be justified. Third, the voter, while referencing specific cases of alleged poor conduct, fails to demonstrate how this poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also does not explicitly compare the debaters' conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by completing all three steps for justifying argument, sources, and conduct points. The site voting policy can be accessed here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@David
@bsh1

look at the most recent vote. He makes generalizations and doesn't survey the main arguments, as well as not addressing the semantics by con. His conduct point, particularly me "disrespecting" con, is shown to have no examples of such a thing and is his own opinion.

-->
@vsp2019

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: PRO did not define the term "Fake news" in the opening statement. CON did a good job refuting PRO's arguments and CON just tapdanced around rather than respond.

>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the conduct points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the conduct points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Melcharaz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct

>Reason for Decision: I'm sorry, this is a mess even to me. We have pro not giving a definition of fake news in first round and con defines it. When Pro does try to bring in definitions neither one of them apply to the sources and arguments made.
The arguments are not founded therefore i will not specifically cover them.
Pro's links show "Negative" but not "Fake or false reporting" Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link. con actually gives helpful links to show Cnn's history and later on the fraudulent nature of the definition of "Fake news." I feel pro didn't show that Cnn is fake news, and that con didn't prove that Cnn is "Not fake" or truthful in its reports. therefore no points to argument. Con had more reliable sources in defining fake news and Cnn history.
Both had same S and G
Pro forfeited round 3 and introduced new information at last round.

>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. I think we get some information regarding the first of these three steps, but we're clearly missing the next two steps. All three steps must be completed to award sources points. By updating the RFD with analysis covering these latter steps, the voter can cast a sufficient vote.
************************************************************************

-->
@dustryder

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited round 3, regardless of the reasoning this is poor conduct on Pro's part.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

-->
@Titanium

lol ur so funny and quick witted bro 😂😂

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Is this your boat?... reference

https://www.amazon.com/Whose-Boat-This-Aftermath-Hurricane/dp/1982121084/ref=asc_df_1982121084/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312057360383&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6676387839142467313&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9030038&hvtargid=pla-569410034604&psc=1

-->
@David

Sorry to bother you so much with some of these inexperienced voters. Can you remove vsp19's vote? Clearly he hasn't read the COC and voting rules.

-->
@Melcharaz

Thanks for being fair. I appreciate it sincerely.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Now we are getting somewhere! You see, i entirely missed those 4 links. Yep, completely missed them. I am sorry for doing so, i suppose im not cut out for reading alot of stuff. And because you were willing to show me that i messed up, I now will take better effort to not skip over links.

-->
@Melcharaz

You are very vague on your sources. "Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link."
I actually disproved his claims in the next round, giving 4 credible sources which RM pretty much conceded to. Look at other votes and read the policy's before publishing votes, it would help you.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Or, you could ask me why i voted in such manner. I feel i explained the sources well enough. and i believe your forfiture made more impact conduct wise than rational telling voters how to vote.

In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's

I explained how your sources and con's impacted the debate, I evaluated multiple sources and told of how it affected the arguments and i explained why rational's sources were superior over yours.

If you wish for my vote to be taken down, it would most likely be because i didn't go over the arguments. Not because of sources.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Bsh will be removing the vote tomorrow and taking care of the rest of the log.

-->
@David
@bsh1

Can you take a look at melcharaz's vote? He barely explains sources at all and he doesn't show the poor conduct by con.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Make a debate and I will accept if I want to.
More than likely I will.

Thanks!

-->
@David

I will do so right now.