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.
Round 2 Our_Boat_is_Right
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.
Round 2 RationalMadman
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.