How to find reliable sources?

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10

08.14.2019 09:29PM

6

9

10

08.14.2019 09:29PM

Russia;s willingness has gone down when Trump came,he's tough

Firstly, no it hasn't. Lol.

Russias bombed civilians in Syria with impunity, used nerve agents on allied soil to kill dissidents, is still happily funding the Ukrainian civil war, and is engaging in electoral manipulation.

Secondly, Trump has barely done ANYTHING to constrain Russia, sanctions have been limited and enforcement pushed by congress; and none of the things you listed appear to have any obvious value, worth or relationship towards constraining Russia’s behaviour.

Your basically claiming that Russia’s behaviour has been constrained, but you can’t say by how much in what way, what policy led to it been constrained, and why.

This is a pitiful defence, it’s like you’re just throwing random nonsensical statements out and expecting us to believe them.

#62

dustryder

Debates: 5

Posts: 1,080

3

2

4

dustryder

08.14.2019 09:33PM

3

2

4

08.14.2019 09:33PM

-->

@Dr.Franklin

How might one investigate such things in a systematic and objective manner?

Topic's author

#63

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.14.2019 10:11PM

4

7

11

08.14.2019 10:11PM

-->

@dustryder

by investigating

Topic's author

#64

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.14.2019 10:11PM

4

7

11

08.14.2019 10:11PM

-->

@Ramshutu

trumo bombed SAA troops before and launched an airstrike

#65

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10

08.14.2019 10:56PM

6

9

10

08.14.2019 10:56PM

-->

@Dr.Franklin

You mean the air strike where he warned Russia the strike was coming so they weren’t harmed in the slightest.

Why not throw another dozen examples of things Trump has done that don’t seem in anyway constraining to Russia?

I asked before: Imagine you’re the leader of Russia - you want to poison a dissident, attack a country, or act nastily in your national interest.

Explain to me the reason they would decide not to do it?

As I said - I’ve explained that Russia do not seemed constrained in any way, they keep doing stuff; and Trump is famously averse to acting against Russia, famously took Vladimir Putin’s side over the US intelligence services and US national interests and has done little that would give Russia pause to act.

But go on, tell me more about those fantastic clothes your emperor has.

Topic's author

#66

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.14.2019 11:01PM

4

7

11

08.14.2019 11:01PM

-->

@Ramshutu

My empoerer has the best clothes

#67

Debates: 43

Posts: 2,768

6

9

10

08.14.2019 11:14PM

6

9

10

08.14.2019 11:14PM

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Except you aren’t able to explain what they look like, what colour they are...

Topic's author

#68

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.14.2019 11:14PM

4

7

11

08.14.2019 11:14PM

-->

@Ramshutu

I'll discuss this with you later, but I want to find good sources

#69

Debates: 24

Posts: 618

3

4

7

08.15.2019 12:42AM

3

4

7

08.15.2019 12:42AM

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Dictionaries - Onelook.com will search all major online dictionaries for the same entries. Oxford, Websters, Collins, and American heritage seem to be the most reputable
Encyclopedias - Britannica is likely the most reputable. Wikipedia as a secondary source, but it is important to pay attention to the underlying sources at Wikipedia and view the articles with skepticism.
Non-partisan government agencies, both federal and state. Try googling with the filtering command "site:.gov" after your search.
Universities and other academic sources: Try googling with the filtering command "site:.edu" after your search
Court records - These may be useful when there are politically contentious issues. When evidence and argument are presented by both sides in court and a neutral fact-finder renders a decision with the whole world watching, there is some credibility there that can't be found elsewhere.

Topic's author

#70

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.15.2019 12:43AM

4

7

11

08.15.2019 12:43AM

-->

@Death23

thx

#71

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

08.15.2019 01:01AM

4

9

11

08.15.2019 01:01AM

Oh. It is not the same forum topic.

Guess Dr.Franklin doesn't understand people have already given their informed opinions on the subject. Oh well.

Topic's author

#72

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:02AM

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:02AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Wow, you were really helpful!

#73

Debates: 24

Posts: 618

3

4

7

08.15.2019 01:06AM

3

4

7

08.15.2019 01:06AM

-->

@Dr.Franklin

I'd stay away from news companies other than the associated press or reuters except for investigational purposes (i.e. I wouldn't rely on articles from news companies to construct a case). Most news companies (e.g. NBC, Fox, CNN, etc) have a recurring audience that likes to be told what it wants to hear. If a news company repeatedly deviates significantly from the desired narrative then the company risks losing the audience which it depends on for revenue.

Topic's author

#74

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:06AM

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:06AM

-->

@Death23

I would agree with you there

#75

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 01:09AM

10

11

08.15.2019 01:09AM

News companies make a living from informing people of relevant things to the day and age and/or topic(s) they specialize in. Journalists work their whole lives passionately at the profession and then people come like Death23 to shit on their (Journos') reputation because they (people like Death and Franklin) ignore that encyclopedias were News in ancient times and were written by colonial bastards who rewrote history to make themselves the heroes of all the wars they were involved in hence the Britannica Encyclopedia being named after the Brits.

Bias is everywhere, quality and beauty is still able be present in spite of that.

Topic's author

#76

Debates: 32

Posts: 10,583

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:17AM

4

7

11

08.15.2019 01:17AM

yeesh

#77

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

08.15.2019 02:29AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 02:29AM

Bias and unreliability are different. While CNN obviously hires more liberals and Fox hires more conservatives, there are still decent stories that form from both sources. Reuters, the Associated Press, and the US News and World Report aren't perfect, but nowadays seem to be contenders for the least biased news site without paywalls and with relatively good credibility. The Economist is good, but requires a subscription. I won't get into the political debate that took up 3 pages on what was supposed to be a post about sources, but I will say that people need to chill.

#78

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

08.15.2019 02:31AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 02:31AM

Some decent stories comes from CNN and Fox. I'm not suggesting all of or even a hefty majority of stories from either news site are good, but they aren't always bad. A lot of it comes down to the individual writer.

#79

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 02:35AM

10

11

08.15.2019 02:35AM

-->

@blamonkey

Show me a single decently accurate and well fact-checked fox news story. One. Show me one.

#80

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 02:37AM

10

11

08.15.2019 02:37AM

-->

@blamonkey

I agree with what you said overall as I just said that 5 posts ago but don't bring Fox up as an example of bias not equalling unreliability since Fox is both biased and unreliable.

#81

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

https://www.foxnews.com/health/abortion-rates-in-us-hit-historic-low-cdc-report-finds

08.15.2019 03:11AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 03:11AM

-->

@RationalMadman

CNN and Fox have failed fact checks, but that doesn't mean everything they say is hogwash.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/mental-illness-mass-shootings

This one summarizes the debate. Is it biased? Yeah, but it gives credence to the other side's points.

#82

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 03:20AM

10

11

08.15.2019 03:20AM

-->

@blamonkey

Nope, that was utter trash propaganda and you know it. Even when they admit mental health is an issue, they make it a 'parents raised them wrong' thing.

#83

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

08.15.2019 03:34AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 03:34AM

-->

@RationalMadman

They sourced peoplewith credentials. They admitted at the beginning that the FBI could only find that 25% of mass shooters had a diagnosable condition. I too find it stupid to label mental illness as the sole contributing factor of mass shootings. Did you read the story on the CDC numbers?

#84

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 03:44AM

10

11

08.15.2019 03:44AM

-->

@blamonkey

I do not care if you agree with them or not. They are wrong. You say 'admitted', they wanted it to be that low.

75% undiagnosed, genius.

#85

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

08.15.2019 04:37AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 04:37AM

-->

@RationalMadman

You haven't looked at the other link. Also, the article never explicitly suggested that the causal factor is strong. It organized a jumble of expert opinions into one space. Sure, some lack validity. Some arguments that are usually considered fringe are offered a little more weight, (such as the video game connection,) but it's not awful reporting. An awful report would discredit opposing arguments with strawman fallacies and sarcastic vitriol. Fox can exhibit such behavior, but I would argue that it is better, on average, than Breitbart, Intellihub, or Infowars. If Alex Jones wrote the article, he wouldn't hesitate to inject his fever-dreamlike conspiracies into the article, like a baker decorating a cake with toothpaste instead of icing.

#86

Debates: 24

Posts: 532

3

5

8

08.15.2019 04:41AM

3

5

8

08.15.2019 04:41AM

I'll put it this way: I would never cite a Fox News story when writing a report for school. I would normally never read the stories either. But, if I was forced at gunpoint to choose to read Breitbart or Fox, I would only choose Breitbart because it is unintentionally hilarious. Overall, Fox is a better conservative news site than many of its competitors.

#87

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.15.2019 06:11PM

10

11

08.15.2019 06:11PM

Infowars is controlled opposition. The only reason the Illuminati silenced Alex Jones is that cleary he had served his purpose and gotten Trump elected, his only purpose after that became to alienate Trump fans and make them seem crazy.

Alex Jones isn't even a flat-earther, he is a fake conspiracy theorist who just ran/runs with whatever 'they' tell him to. This is why he goes so hard after Left-Wing corruption and so lenient against right-wing corruption and it was the Republicans who were behind NASA's lies.

#88

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

08.18.2019 03:50AM

3

8

11

08.18.2019 03:50AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Just curious. Do you seriously believe in the illuminati?

#89

Debates: 566

Posts: 19,930

10

11

08.18.2019 04:32AM

10

11

08.18.2019 04:32AM

-->

@PressF4Respect

The name Illuminati is most ironic as they exist in darkness, not in an illuminated manner, but yes there is an organised Elite ruling the world as we speak. In fact they will read this as I have no doubt they are shocked with how much I know about them despite lacking any sensible way of getting the information. The answer is simple; I am a genius of pattern analysis and their one weakness is they leave patterns, I don't even need to read the news to know their patterns, it's in the entire structure of education, careers (especially those in military and law enforcement).

I love them, for I have no logical choice but to bow before them, but do I respect them? Not one bit. You may think I mixed up 'love' and 'respect' but love is that I care for them over anarchist lunatics, respect is that I think they truly deserve their power (which I don't think).

#90

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11