A crap, sorry about forfeiting that round. I completely forgot about this debate (If we can even still call this a debate) none the less the mistake is on me. I was going to argue that Trump simply calls news fake when he disagrees with it, and that doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is actually false. I was going to point to some reports and studies done on the accuracy of news reporting and so on and so forth. Feel free to argue against that if you would like in the next round, but again I did forfeit the round and you can choose to just extend your arguments, it's up to you.
Are you sure you want to continue this? I gave you a perfect chance to walk away from a losing argument, but I have found myself with some free time so why not, let us continue.
The idea that CNN is better then Fox News is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. In almost every unit of measurement, CNN is better the Fox News.
And here I thought you were better then that Boat, to say I am disappointed is an understatement. It's been a pleasure proving you wrong in this comment section, but I can now tell that you are just going to continue holding onto your beliefs no matter how many times I beat you over the head with reason and logic. Goodbye Boat, I'm sure we'll meet again in another debate or comment section.
Also, are you going to answer any of the questions I proposed to you? By all means drop all my arguments but I at least wanted to give you another chance to argue them.
I would remind you that this whole discussion about the current state of journalism in the United States stemmed from your claim that CNN was fake news. Do you still think that? Or has someone actually changed your mind on something?
Never the less back to the whole issue of objectivity. What is more important in your opinion, being factual or objective? I would argue that being factual in your reporting far outweighs objectivity if we are forced to choose between the two. At least with factual reporting you can trust what you see and read, unlike a purely objective news source where you can only trust that they don't have some kind of motive.
The purpose of the news should be to inform the people and present the facts, if you can't even do that then I dare say you can barely call yourself a news agency. Never the less, I would argue that CNN is far more factual and objective then most media outlets, especially more then Fox News. Shouldn't your scorn be pointing towards the outlets that lack objectivity AND the ability to report facts? Why are you only focused on the objectivity of outlets? If anything you should be on the side of CNN and encourage other outlets to be more like them, and do not twist my words around either. I'm well aware of the problems at CNN, but they are definitely the best news outlet out of the big three.
It would essentially be one extra class each semester starting in high school, you really don't think students can handle one extra class? Our students need to be pushed, we've been lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of academic scores for years now, and philosophy would be the perfect subject to increase scores across the board. Research has shown students that take on philosophy classes see an improvement across all subjects, due to the fact that philosophy improves on core academic skills such as critical thinking and problem solving.
It would be equivalent to the credits needed for subjects such as math and English. We don't see that happening with our current subjects and classes that cover philosophy, so there is no evidence that by making philosophy a mandatory subject would change that. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner by the way.
So you're critiquing CNN more than FOX News and MSNBC because they claim to be objective? All of the news agencies claim to be objective, to do anything less harms their reputation as a news agency. No agency would ever come out and just state that they weren't objective, it would be committing corporate suicide. You and I can both find clips from the big three and we'll see all of them claim to be objective in their reporting. Again just because you lean left or right does not mean your reporting is false or inaccurate. It mostly has to do with what stories get reported on and the language used to describe events. CNN might lean left but that doesn't mean their reporting is false.
The website you cited even agrees with what I'm saying, this is a direct quote from their page on CNN.
"CNN has been inaccurately criticized as being fake news by President Trump and many of his supporters.
The site then continues to say that while
"CNN has failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual ... CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting".
"CNN is fake news. The most obvious thing about CNN is that they report to be objective reporters, when in fact they have a clear democratic bias. They also make certain things seem bad with language or tone, but don't report the other side, like on illegal immigration, gun control, etc."
- Well if those actions constitutes a news agency being fake news then I don't see how any news agency is real news. Every one of the major and most of the smaller news agencies have some sort of bias, be in conservative or liberal. Fox News does the exact same things that CNN does but just racks up the fear mongering to an extreme level. Being bias in what stories you run does not take away from the fact that their reporting is factual and backed up by evidence. Don't even get me started on "language or tone" all of the media use loaded language, and doesn't report the other side? Do you not see all the panel shows CNN runs every night? As much as I hate such panels and what they become eventually (usually yelling matches), they allow for both sides to be heard without a doubt.
Come now Boat, I don't think you really believe that. I consider myself a Liberal, and we're not a monolith you know. But back to the problem at hand, any thoughts on possibly debating another issue? He might be down for it if you ask.
Boat like I said, there is no point in arguing with him, the chances of you being able to convince him to cancel the debate are slim at best. He is set in his thought process and won't listen to logic or reasoning. You also should not care about your wins and losses Boat, they don't matter in the slightest and they definitely don't tell you who the best debaters are.
Death, why is my reasoning flawed? Please, do explain where you think I was wrong. Also, you haven't responded to Boat's question, why and how could you "pay" for his mistake?
"Never argue with a fool, for onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
I am a strong believer in the conservation of energy, with that in mind I think this whole issue has become nothing more than a waste of time, and thus a waste of energy. Death isn't going to listen to reason, and Boat isn't going to be able to change that fact. With that in mind, I suggest you two either drop this matter and move forward or (and this is the far more interesting option in my opinion) you two debate another issue. This will let the two of you settle this like proper debaters and let the rest of us enjoy a good debate, it's a win for everyone involved.
O I don't believe what he said, he definitely should have looked into the debate more before clicking accept, and that mistake is completely on him. However, you also need to take responsibility for your mistake in setting this debate up. In setting up this debate you should have taken the Con position considering you are debating against the resolution you posted. If you wanted to vote for the resolution you should have phrased the debate differently, such as "Trump Should Not Have to Pay Warren". This mistake is completely on you, and you need to also take responsibility. Considering you both messed up, I suggested you just cancel the debate, to save everyone's time and effort.
And I don't care either, the fact remains that what I said is most likely the truth. Cancel the debate or don't at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What does matter is your character, and caring about a "win" this much shows a lot about you as a debater. I suggest you stop caring about wins and loses so much, try actually learning something from each encounter and try and grow your understanding, that should be the reason why we bother debating one another.
I think its quite clear that all you want is the win in this debate, you don't care about debating or argumentation. You just want a win so your arbitrary and meaningless stats look better. If you really cared about your time you would cancel the debate and find someone who will actually debate you on this issue. If you don't you are literally wasting days for each round to be forfeited.
Insulting someone in the comment section is probably not the most mature thing to do, probably wont help you in voting stage either considering conduct is scored, might want to apologize Mr.Boat.
Break away from the US? Are you trying to argue that immigrants who come to the United States are trying to break away from the union?
A crap, sorry about forfeiting that round. I completely forgot about this debate (If we can even still call this a debate) none the less the mistake is on me. I was going to argue that Trump simply calls news fake when he disagrees with it, and that doesn't necessarily mean the reporting is actually false. I was going to point to some reports and studies done on the accuracy of news reporting and so on and so forth. Feel free to argue against that if you would like in the next round, but again I did forfeit the round and you can choose to just extend your arguments, it's up to you.
Are you sure you want to continue this? I gave you a perfect chance to walk away from a losing argument, but I have found myself with some free time so why not, let us continue.
The idea that CNN is better then Fox News is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. In almost every unit of measurement, CNN is better the Fox News.
Which news agency is more factual? CNN.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-needle-our-truth-o-meter-scorec/
Which agency produces more informed viewers? CNN.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/
Which news agency had to drop their slogan of being "fair and balanced" ? Fox News.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/337797-fox-news-drops-fair-and-balanced-slogan
Which news agency is more trusted? CNN.
https://www.rjionline.org/reporthtml.html
Do I need to continue ?
And here I thought you were better then that Boat, to say I am disappointed is an understatement. It's been a pleasure proving you wrong in this comment section, but I can now tell that you are just going to continue holding onto your beliefs no matter how many times I beat you over the head with reason and logic. Goodbye Boat, I'm sure we'll meet again in another debate or comment section.
You are just plain wrong.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/
Also, are you going to answer any of the questions I proposed to you? By all means drop all my arguments but I at least wanted to give you another chance to argue them.
I'm about 99% sure this guy just came to promote debateisland, I don't think a real debate is going to take place.
I would remind you that this whole discussion about the current state of journalism in the United States stemmed from your claim that CNN was fake news. Do you still think that? Or has someone actually changed your mind on something?
Never the less back to the whole issue of objectivity. What is more important in your opinion, being factual or objective? I would argue that being factual in your reporting far outweighs objectivity if we are forced to choose between the two. At least with factual reporting you can trust what you see and read, unlike a purely objective news source where you can only trust that they don't have some kind of motive.
The purpose of the news should be to inform the people and present the facts, if you can't even do that then I dare say you can barely call yourself a news agency. Never the less, I would argue that CNN is far more factual and objective then most media outlets, especially more then Fox News. Shouldn't your scorn be pointing towards the outlets that lack objectivity AND the ability to report facts? Why are you only focused on the objectivity of outlets? If anything you should be on the side of CNN and encourage other outlets to be more like them, and do not twist my words around either. I'm well aware of the problems at CNN, but they are definitely the best news outlet out of the big three.
It would essentially be one extra class each semester starting in high school, you really don't think students can handle one extra class? Our students need to be pushed, we've been lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of academic scores for years now, and philosophy would be the perfect subject to increase scores across the board. Research has shown students that take on philosophy classes see an improvement across all subjects, due to the fact that philosophy improves on core academic skills such as critical thinking and problem solving.
It would be equivalent to the credits needed for subjects such as math and English. We don't see that happening with our current subjects and classes that cover philosophy, so there is no evidence that by making philosophy a mandatory subject would change that. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner by the way.
So you're critiquing CNN more than FOX News and MSNBC because they claim to be objective? All of the news agencies claim to be objective, to do anything less harms their reputation as a news agency. No agency would ever come out and just state that they weren't objective, it would be committing corporate suicide. You and I can both find clips from the big three and we'll see all of them claim to be objective in their reporting. Again just because you lean left or right does not mean your reporting is false or inaccurate. It mostly has to do with what stories get reported on and the language used to describe events. CNN might lean left but that doesn't mean their reporting is false.
The website you cited even agrees with what I'm saying, this is a direct quote from their page on CNN.
"CNN has been inaccurately criticized as being fake news by President Trump and many of his supporters.
The site then continues to say that while
"CNN has failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual ... CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting".
"CNN is fake news. The most obvious thing about CNN is that they report to be objective reporters, when in fact they have a clear democratic bias. They also make certain things seem bad with language or tone, but don't report the other side, like on illegal immigration, gun control, etc."
- Well if those actions constitutes a news agency being fake news then I don't see how any news agency is real news. Every one of the major and most of the smaller news agencies have some sort of bias, be in conservative or liberal. Fox News does the exact same things that CNN does but just racks up the fear mongering to an extreme level. Being bias in what stories you run does not take away from the fact that their reporting is factual and backed up by evidence. Don't even get me started on "language or tone" all of the media use loaded language, and doesn't report the other side? Do you not see all the panel shows CNN runs every night? As much as I hate such panels and what they become eventually (usually yelling matches), they allow for both sides to be heard without a doubt.
Come now Boat, I don't think you really believe that. I consider myself a Liberal, and we're not a monolith you know. But back to the problem at hand, any thoughts on possibly debating another issue? He might be down for it if you ask.
Boat like I said, there is no point in arguing with him, the chances of you being able to convince him to cancel the debate are slim at best. He is set in his thought process and won't listen to logic or reasoning. You also should not care about your wins and losses Boat, they don't matter in the slightest and they definitely don't tell you who the best debaters are.
Death, why is my reasoning flawed? Please, do explain where you think I was wrong. Also, you haven't responded to Boat's question, why and how could you "pay" for his mistake?
"Never argue with a fool, for onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
I am a strong believer in the conservation of energy, with that in mind I think this whole issue has become nothing more than a waste of time, and thus a waste of energy. Death isn't going to listen to reason, and Boat isn't going to be able to change that fact. With that in mind, I suggest you two either drop this matter and move forward or (and this is the far more interesting option in my opinion) you two debate another issue. This will let the two of you settle this like proper debaters and let the rest of us enjoy a good debate, it's a win for everyone involved.
O I don't believe what he said, he definitely should have looked into the debate more before clicking accept, and that mistake is completely on him. However, you also need to take responsibility for your mistake in setting this debate up. In setting up this debate you should have taken the Con position considering you are debating against the resolution you posted. If you wanted to vote for the resolution you should have phrased the debate differently, such as "Trump Should Not Have to Pay Warren". This mistake is completely on you, and you need to also take responsibility. Considering you both messed up, I suggested you just cancel the debate, to save everyone's time and effort.
And I don't care either, the fact remains that what I said is most likely the truth. Cancel the debate or don't at the end of the day it doesn't matter. What does matter is your character, and caring about a "win" this much shows a lot about you as a debater. I suggest you stop caring about wins and loses so much, try actually learning something from each encounter and try and grow your understanding, that should be the reason why we bother debating one another.
I think its quite clear that all you want is the win in this debate, you don't care about debating or argumentation. You just want a win so your arbitrary and meaningless stats look better. If you really cared about your time you would cancel the debate and find someone who will actually debate you on this issue. If you don't you are literally wasting days for each round to be forfeited.
The debate has already been cancelled in a sense, what's the point of continuing if Boat isn't going to debate you?
Insulting someone in the comment section is probably not the most mature thing to do, probably wont help you in voting stage either considering conduct is scored, might want to apologize Mr.Boat.
Good lord not another one. Why do so many people just regurgitate Steven Chowder's material?