Voting reason for a debate

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 5
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist



    Round 1-
    The instigator did not define what he meant by Fake News which made the contender define it. That is bad conduct since the instigator is the one who created the debate and should be burdened with laying out the rules. The instigator 4 stories from CNN and called it Fake News. The problem here is that CNN has posted more stories than that and since he has not given the definition of Fake News the contender was forced to concede the Round and wait until the burden of proof is fulfilled by the instigator. The contender used his Round to define Fake News and state CNN's mission statement while also laying out a direction this debate would go.

    The instigator finally define Fake News. The problem here is that he has 2 definitions which means not only is he making the reader confused on what would be his burden he is also making the contender confused on how his opponent is supposed to fill his burden of proof.

    The instigator then started with his actual argument which is basically 90% of news about Trump is negative therefore Fake News. The problem here is that being negative does not mean it is fake. The instigator did not understand that so basically he gave no point for CNN being Fake News.

    The instigator then moves on to his 4 initial points which he tries to provide how they were Fake News.

    The instigator basically says for his first point CNN made points about a 2 minute video therefore they are fake news. The problem here is that by both of his definitions they are not. The instigator failed to say if it was deliberate but can show if it is done consistently.

    The second was about Smollet. This time the instigator stated "CNN did not have all the facts." even if he stated earlier the "incidents pretty close together" does not mean CNN is Fake News. Just by looking at the front page of CNN there are 38 articles they have published. Even if both stories came out on the same day there are 36 other stories which the instigator would have to say that is also Fake News in order to say CNN is Fake News just by looking at their site on that day in that hour.

    Third point is basically the instigator has conspiracy theories about supposed conspiracy theories that CNN "made" up about Russia collusion. The problem here is that the Mueller report was not done and CNN were speculating like I am sure FOX was saying there was no Russia collusion.

    Fourth reason the instigator gave was 1 CNN reporter said "Russia Collusion is just a big nothing-burger.". CNN has more than 1 staff and to point out an anecdote like this doesn't mean CNN as a whole is Fake News.

    Lastly is another reporter that "also spread fake news" without proving it to be the case. Even if his source is right that Jim Acosta is repeatedly spreading Fake News that only makes the case the Jim Acosta is Fake News. Even by the second definition he brought in CNN is not Fake News.

    The conclusion was basically saying he has proven CNN is Fake News but from my breakdown he hasn't. He also moved the goal posts of the debate while also making a contradiction "So when I say "CNN is fake news", I am changing that for the sake of people's technicality to "CNN sometimes spreads fake news stories/topics that can lead to them not being trusted". By this he has pretty much said CNN sometimes repeatedly spreads Fake News. Sometimes and repeatedly is a contradiction since both cannot apply at the same time. 


    The contender starts of by saying CNN is living up to their mission statement by delivering current news on an important topic like Russia collusion. Not part of if CNN is Fake News or not so I will stop talking about it.

    The contender next provided Nick Sandman is suing Washington Post but not CNN. Don't see how this is important in saying CNN is fake news.

    The contender then points out that the instigator provided his own definition of Fake News but didn't due to an appeal to hypocrisy.

    Then the contender claims the instigator is moving the goalposts which then was followed up by sources that add more credibility to his definition of Fake News. 

    Then he briefly mentions CNN's coverage about Russia Collusion without giving a source that could have helped him to provide a more substantiated point. The contender did however challenge the instigator to view the articles but didn't point out a snip it of their coverage which would have improved his point.

    The problem I had with the contender's Round 2 was that he did not address all of the instigator's points. I have clearly mentioned above the problems with the instigator's points but the contender focused on who Nick Sandman is not suing, more evidence that his definition is correct and a challenge and a point about CNN's Trump-Russia ties.

    Continues...

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
     
    The instigator forfeited which does mean I will be voting the conduct point to the contender.

     
    The contender gave 2 sentences which does seem like he was waiving the Round due to the instigator not giving the contender anything to respond to for Round 3. The contender could have used this Round or even the last one to state how even by the instigator's own definition it isn't Fake News but didn't.
     
     
    The instigator then appeals to the readers by saying the contender dropped "objective reporting". Problem here is that the conversation has revolved around definitions which the contender hasn't helped even though I have laid out how even by the instigator's own definition CNN is not Fake News. The instigator also makes the point that which I do agree with that the contender did not address all of his arguments. The instigator does have a point here but"If I put my time into an argument" the instigator should also be capable of making sure simple things like definitions are not a problem in the debate. That problem is the fault of the instigator which was addressed in Round 2.
     
    The instigator then makes a point about name-calling but this isn't what the debateis about.
     
    Then the instigator decides to correct in saying Covington is also suing CNN. The problem here is that the point the contender made was not important in saying CNN is Fake News but the instigator did not realise that and then proceeded into correcting his point that wouldn't mean he was right about the core of the debate if he was right.
     
    The instigator then decides to counter-claim the contender counter-claim to his definition by saying "There is no dictionary definition.". This could have been a point for the instigator but he then decides to talk about how this""decontextualised"- sounds a bit like Covington, doesn't it?" Problem here is that it is not a point for him even if he was correct.
     
    After that the instigator talks about CNN headings to articles then proceeds into saying "this does not reflect the facts of the story, with insults being thrown at sandman and the boys first with the use of profanity and racial remarks" Problem here is that judging something based a story based on its title leaves out what is inside. This also does not help his case because he did not clear up the contradiction which the contender failed to miss which was that sometimes repeatedly is Fake News worthy. So even if he had a point the goal posts were changed by that comment and pretty much his point null due to a contradiction.
     
    The instigator then points out again the contender did not respond to all hisarguments which is a fair criticism.
     
    Then the instigator nails down the point that producer do have a say in what was going on at CNN but like I said earlier on it was not enough to provide a case for CNN being Fake News. 
     
    Finally the instigator brings in a new point in Round 4 even though there was plenty of space in earlier Rounds. 
     
     
    The contender stated the instigator violated a rule. Since I am not voting on siter ules I will leave it at that.
     
    Then the contender brings up forfeiting Round 3.
     
    Thirdly the contender brings up brings up that the instigator made new points and didnot address what the contender gave as a link for CNN's coverage of Russia ties.
     
    What participant provided more convincing arguments?
     
    Since the instigator was not able to provide a definition in Round 1 and did not fulfillhis burden of proof in the following Round or in later Rounds. This point will be rewarded to the contender.
     
    What participant provided the most reliable sources?
     
    Both gave sources but one gave evidence to why his definition of Fake News is correct compared to the other which didn't instead simply said "There are multiple definitions on fake news." without showing a source for his own Fake News definition. 
     
    What participant had better spelling and grammar?
     
    Tie.
     
    What participant had better conduct?
     
    The instigator forfeited, tried to appeal to the readers and did not fulfil his burden of proof even when he moved the goalposts on what the debate was about. 
     
    Everything else that was not addressed is a tie. 
     

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    Addition to this:

    What participant provided the most reliable sources?

    The contender used this source: - https://www.webwise.ie/teachers/what-is-fake-news/
    Which gave evidence to support his definition of the word of Fake News.
    In order for the instigator to counter he would have actually needed to provide a source of his own but did not he simply stated 2 Fake News definitions then in a later Round said "There are multiple definitions on fake news.  There is no dictionary definition." which is not justification for not provide a source for his definition. 

    The contender also use this source: - https://cnnsoc185.wordpress.com/vision-statement/
    Which helped anyone understand what CNN's mission is as a company. 

    Which did not provide a definition of Fake News. What also didn't help was that the instigator used this to say CNN is Fake News when all this stated was news coverage of Trump is negative. Negative does not mean Fake News so the evidence was a non-sequitur and needed a better source for actual Fake News whether it be by his definition or what the contender gave.

    The instigator also gave this source: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE&t=) and this (https://www.infowars.com/proof-cnns-acosta-is-fake-news-caravan-is-an-invasion/) which even if true doesn't mean CNN is Fake News by either his own definition or the contender's definition.

    The contender gave this source https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/19/media/nick-sandmann-washington-post-lawsuit/index.html which was old compared to more recent news that stated CNN is being sued. The problem here is that it does not help either side about whether or not CNN is Fake News. This one applies to what I said here as well: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/04/how-covingtons-nick-sandmann-could-win-his-defamation-claim-against-washington-post/

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/donald-trump-twitter-fake-news-fraud-not-new-a8475866.html This given by contender helped readers understand the history behind Fake News before it was called that. This has helped his case since his definition is given more legitimacy if he can use past events as a reason for why this is used today. 

    which requires intent and sinister motive by default This also helped readers understand that Fake News is basically fraud but used in the context of news.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate This also furthers the contender's credibility of his use of Fake News. 

    https://edition.cnn.com/specials/politics/trump-russia-ties This gave the instigator a chance to pick an article that he deemed Fake News but the contender's attempt was in vain but does still help his side because the instigator didn't even mention it in following Rounds.

    This helped readers understand that the contender was false but the core of the debate was about whether or not CNN is Fake News so saying CNN is being sued by Covington doesn't mean it is actually Fake News. What the instigator could have done is provide a case report of the Covington kid suing based on fraud charges and showing how the Washington Post lost because of it. This wasn't the case because the Covington lawyers filed a defamation claim not a fraud claim. 

    This is no way helps the instigator's point of view because he used this to simply talk about the headline which by itself cannot state how that story if Fake News by both definitions and cannot in anyway say how CNN is Fake News by both definitions.

    The instigator provided a new point in the last Round. This should have been in earlier Rounds so that the contender can speak about it but it was added in the last Round. It did not help his case about CNN being Fake News by both definitions.



  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,928
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Either everyone on the site uses this thread as a pinned topic or you stop doing this and do it on the debate's comment section instead please. This will become a real hassle if it's competing with several forum topics, thanks in advance.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    To RationalMadman:
    Okay will do next time.