why would anybody debate with type1. He is a conspiracy theory lunatic that has no logic at all. He is a lot like Alex Jones in this respect with all of their craziness.
geeeez chill, i deleted it so i could give myself time to post an argument as I was on vacation. Also to make it recent on the debates tab, as well as not letting it being self-destructed within a time limit.
That was a website reporting on the study. While the stats were true, it was the websites opinion to say "(fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)." I agree with you, you can't make that claim if it is only 2%.
lmao shapiro is the smartest political figure out there. He could destroy any of your arguments in a second. He is a living encyclopedia and has facts and reasoning.
I will be on vacation for 5 days starting saturday so i would appreciate if u post ur round 2 arguments very close to the deadline like u did in round 1 so i will have a little time to review them. If time does not permit I will finish my argument in the comments. Thx.
"Facebook memes and breitbart blog posts where you get your info."
damn i got roasted you sound like an intellectual titan with those ben shapiro fire roasts.
i will post proof in my arguments so for now i will not be responding to new comment section arguments.
"Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?"
Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated. They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view. They were pro-obama in his days, so clearly they have a leftist bias. I could argue all day how fox news is not "wrong" in their reporting but I can at least have the common sense to admit they are pro-conservative and come from republican viewpoints.
"So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay"
No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias.
"Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump."
When you post or tell multiple fake news stories and have a reputation for doing so, you can't trust what they say. That is called Fake News. It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not, it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it. That is why their viewership dropped dramatically in the direct days after it came out there was no collusion, in some cases up to 50% drop. That tells you viewers aren't trsuting you, is it not?
Yes that was the terrorist attack fake protest. Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them"
so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake.
Infowars was stating what acosta said in the press conference and showing tweets about what happened days later. Infowars was just reporting the fake news, and while, yes, they are bias misrepresented by doo doo head alex jones, I don't think the info they gave was fake or misrepresented in any way. Read nxt comment im running out of space
It doesn't matter if the majority of it is fake news or not, it matters if they are spreading false or misleading information at all, which is what CNN has done countless times.
So first u said "gimme an instance where people admitted it was fake news"
so i gave you two examples, one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things. So now u r backtracking and want every single person saying it is fake news? Surely since they are pushing an anti-trump agenda they wouldn't tell you it is fake news because that would ruin their agenda.
According to a harvard study, CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House. Shorestein’s study showed that an average of 80% of broadcast and print media published negative stories about Trump, as compared to 40% negative about former President Barack Obama. Of all the news outlets, CNN was the most egregious abuser of the negative Trump stories.
Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?
Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda. And because "objective journalism" represents their news network, that is definitely fake news and fake news in the majority of stories CNN airs or publishes because they are not being unbiased.
I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-
- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
U said the def of fake news was 'intentonally misleading...."
I think that would qualify for ur def. then.
For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real and I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however.
Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about. I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real.
bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
"An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing."
no evidence for atheism.
Ok so you didn't respond to my counterpoints. Your confusing me with what most of what you said. Your explanation seems to be very complicated and detailed, so plz explain the third paragraph as if i were a 5 year old.
It's not nonsensical points about media bias, that is one of the points this debate is centered around. Being a leftist like you, you believe CNN is factual and I have to prove that the 90% negative coverage isn't factual.....but that's not the point. The point is that they do have a bias, like most other organizations. And the point I am trying to make is that they underline "the most trusted name in news" and claim they are neutral journalists, when in fact they clearly are not. They have a leftist agenda and would praise obama but haters on trump, and you seem to say that is justifiable because it is backed up with facts. This is not the case though...they spin facts to work towards their agenda.
Fox News has bias night news with a Conservative perspective, and I would argue they are factual, but arguing who is and isn't is a very objective and opinionated topic.
The reason I don't have the same critique for CNN as i do for Fox or MSNBC is because they don't claim to be objective journalists, but CNN does.
""Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You have been avoiding this the whole time.
"One person to compared to how many posts CNN produces."
Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake? Van Jones is the most far-left person on CNN, arguably. He hates Trump. For him to say that was big.
"It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right is the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative."
I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism. Those last two can't prove science made the world. Nothing can be proven. The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual.
"If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?"
I haven't debated in 5 months.
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger"
"Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts."
I provided substance and facts that I just repeated that you never responded to. You responded to my claims by saying "Well u r biased and other commenters are doing it for me.." which they didn't respond to my claims before u commented that. That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts.
Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?
I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time.
You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts. You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
No, it's to expose the unfair and bias/selective reporting that happens at CNN, with many fake stories that prove it, which is what this debate will develop around, so I don't want to get too much more into it in comments, I will just let the debate happen to prove my case.
"For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad."
They are not reporting anything pro trump, where as when obama was president, they praised him on everything. All of saying is they clearly have a liberal bias, but they report to be objective journalists, which is not the case.
"For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation."
Because they claim to be unbiased, and have very few guests on that have a different viewpoint from liberals. Fox News always have anti-trump and liberal guests on, because they actually show the other side a lot, unlike "unbiased" CNN.
"In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable."
The Russia Collusion narrative. The days directly after it came out there was no collusion, CNN viewership went way down, in some cases up to 50%. Your claim leads me into the next thing you said which is my proof.
"You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception."
Can u give examples or further proof plz?
How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump? Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/
Or the whole russia thing was a lie? Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.
Previously you said " For it to be Fake News you need to find a clip of [Someone] knowing it was false information but still reported on it."
Well, i guess i have done so and proved u wrong.
Van Jones, a far-leftist, was also caught on tape saying russia was "just a big nothingburger"
To your point, before, yes, facts don't care about your feelings.
Like I said, your the only one who said i need "50% or more" to win. I never said that, and that isn't the criteria.
Of course I could point out more fake news, those 3 were just some popular examples. I'm not gonna go back 5 years and look at every single show and decide that 50% is fake news. Use common sense.
"Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading"
You misunderstood my point. I could care less about all this "what left say is true and not misleading" but "right news is misleading" that is completely objective and opinionated. I'm saying they say they are unbiased journalists, which is misleading to viewers because they have a leftist agenda but pretend everything they say is true and completely objective.
" I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news."
Showed 4 examples in my opening argument.
"That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes."
Um ok CNN just made "mistakes?" I don't think so. They knew they were putting out and alleging all these things without having all the facts and context. So them ruining covington kid's reputation, calling him "racist" and "mocking of native americans" and calling him all these terrible things was just a "mistake?" It sounds like they were spreading lies and so desperately wanting to destroy trump and his supporters, especially when CNN insists on "fact-checking" all the time. Of course they didn't cover a conservative getting assaulted by another person on the UC Berkely campus, oh no, because that would ruin there agenda. Doesn't sound like objective journalism to me.
"You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are."
Other way around chief, u brainwashed libtards cant even see your own bias.
misleading viewers imo is fake news. Ok? That's my definition. I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%". I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased.
It doesn't have to be intentional. Misleading viewers on facts without having full context or basing news off allegations are some. Like the Covington kid, they took a 2 min. clip out of a 2 hour video and made a kids reputation look very bad calling him"racist" without knowing or researching context.
There is no one set definition of fake news. It has different meanings. What I am talking about is misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information.
omar, using wiki as a definition website is not a good place to define. When hosts or cooper spread fake news, they're not gonna admit that it is false or misleading, because they want viewers to believe it.
Ragnar, crap like that of "50% or more" just to prove a point of "BOP" is what I dislike about these tryhard websites. I'm trying to have a casual debate and you tryhards over complicate it a lot. The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims. Then I provide rebuttals to those. There's no set "BOP" on 1 person. So don't vote on crap like 50% or more fake news, I am saying in general they spread false information and I gave specific examples. I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a "fake news network" because these things are not measurable nor quantifiable.
dang i just got so roasted, u don't even know me. I'm not being serious with this flat earth stuff. Judging based on this isn't a fair assessment. I was undefeated on DDO when it was actually good, in the top 100 leaderboard and top debater for my age group. I haven't debated a lot recently, but one of my best debates is my first one on this website on gun control. And honestly idc about people's opinions of who's smarter or better debater or wutever. We all have our different strenghts in subjects, and some might be more experienced then others, but is it for fame or wut? Who cares if ur top 5 or wutever? I use this as a community with friends like Alec and me and alec don't care who's better cuz we've both made some pretty darn good debates already and we help each other and educate each other with our different strengths on topics. And honestly, Alec is super smart especially for being autistic and i rly enjoy his debates as he usually is respectful but still roasts liberals. btw ik autistics brains are dif and in some parts they are slow to learn but i also think/heard they are exceptionally smart and their brain functions much higher than normal people on certain things as well. (correct me if im wrong)
lol wrick it ralph is getting destroyed so far
you literally proved my point lmao 😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
this sounds like u lmao
why would anybody debate with type1. He is a conspiracy theory lunatic that has no logic at all. He is a lot like Alex Jones in this respect with all of their craziness.
dang now u winning, i'll have to get raltar to vote again more thoroughly lol
wait did i miss something where it said "rap battle" it got me completely off-guard lolol
geeeez chill, i deleted it so i could give myself time to post an argument as I was on vacation. Also to make it recent on the debates tab, as well as not letting it being self-destructed within a time limit.
Thanks for the vote!
Viewers,
Sorry, I was on vacation. This wasn't very productive. Apologies, I will still post an argument in the final round.
oh and thx for subbing to pewds :)
That was a website reporting on the study. While the stats were true, it was the websites opinion to say "(fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)." I agree with you, you can't make that claim if it is only 2%.
I will prove my case.
k thx for the libtard bias vote u will be voting
lmao shapiro is the smartest political figure out there. He could destroy any of your arguments in a second. He is a living encyclopedia and has facts and reasoning.
I will be on vacation for 5 days starting saturday so i would appreciate if u post ur round 2 arguments very close to the deadline like u did in round 1 so i will have a little time to review them. If time does not permit I will finish my argument in the comments. Thx.
"Facebook memes and breitbart blog posts where you get your info."
damn i got roasted you sound like an intellectual titan with those ben shapiro fire roasts.
i will post proof in my arguments so for now i will not be responding to new comment section arguments.
I've had enuf with comment arguments I will provide evidence in my debate arguments which I am working on rn.
thx for the arg.
"Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?"
Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated. They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view. They were pro-obama in his days, so clearly they have a leftist bias. I could argue all day how fox news is not "wrong" in their reporting but I can at least have the common sense to admit they are pro-conservative and come from republican viewpoints.
"So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay"
No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias.
"Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump."
When you post or tell multiple fake news stories and have a reputation for doing so, you can't trust what they say. That is called Fake News. It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not, it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it. That is why their viewership dropped dramatically in the direct days after it came out there was no collusion, in some cases up to 50% drop. That tells you viewers aren't trsuting you, is it not?
Yes that was the terrorist attack fake protest. Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them"
so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake.
Infowars was stating what acosta said in the press conference and showing tweets about what happened days later. Infowars was just reporting the fake news, and while, yes, they are bias misrepresented by doo doo head alex jones, I don't think the info they gave was fake or misrepresented in any way. Read nxt comment im running out of space
ik affirmative action sux :(
"whites usually have higher IQs than most other races."
lol I'm assuming Asians are the exception to most other races 😂
"I am not talking about divine beings that were cast from heaven or something gay like that. "
Even though I'm Christian this was funny as heck lmao 😂😂
CNN has also been caught staging interviews and protests, such as staging protesters in London after a terrorist attack.
Here is Jim Acosta spreading fake news over the border-
https://www.infowars.com/proof-cnns-acosta-is-fake-news-caravan-is-an-invasion/
It doesn't matter if the majority of it is fake news or not, it matters if they are spreading false or misleading information at all, which is what CNN has done countless times.
btw i think ur a cool guy too and respect u we just have different opinions
So first u said "gimme an instance where people admitted it was fake news"
so i gave you two examples, one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things. So now u r backtracking and want every single person saying it is fake news? Surely since they are pushing an anti-trump agenda they wouldn't tell you it is fake news because that would ruin their agenda.
According to a harvard study, CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House. Shorestein’s study showed that an average of 80% of broadcast and print media published negative stories about Trump, as compared to 40% negative about former President Barack Obama. Of all the news outlets, CNN was the most egregious abuser of the negative Trump stories.
Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?
Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda. And because "objective journalism" represents their news network, that is definitely fake news and fake news in the majority of stories CNN airs or publishes because they are not being unbiased.
I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-
- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
U said the def of fake news was 'intentonally misleading...."
I think that would qualify for ur def. then.
For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real and I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however.
Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about. I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real.
ye ig tbh i just dont feel like it tho
bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
"An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing."
no evidence for atheism.
I would be fine to have a debate with omar, but I am busy this week and will be out of town next week.
I am not a big fan of dust from seeing his DDO debates, and don't think it would be very constructive as he seems close minded and set in his leftism.
I also have had many constructive debates and have changed multiple people's minds on topics like Gun control and kneeling for the anthem.
People have also changed my mind, for example statistics about gun control. I think the key to having the most open-mind is being respectful.
Obviously omar and I have not been so respectful, lol, so ig it would be a debate for others to view and not change any of our minds.
Ok so you didn't respond to my counterpoints. Your confusing me with what most of what you said. Your explanation seems to be very complicated and detailed, so plz explain the third paragraph as if i were a 5 year old.
It's not nonsensical points about media bias, that is one of the points this debate is centered around. Being a leftist like you, you believe CNN is factual and I have to prove that the 90% negative coverage isn't factual.....but that's not the point. The point is that they do have a bias, like most other organizations. And the point I am trying to make is that they underline "the most trusted name in news" and claim they are neutral journalists, when in fact they clearly are not. They have a leftist agenda and would praise obama but haters on trump, and you seem to say that is justifiable because it is backed up with facts. This is not the case though...they spin facts to work towards their agenda.
Fox News has bias night news with a Conservative perspective, and I would argue they are factual, but arguing who is and isn't is a very objective and opinionated topic.
The reason I don't have the same critique for CNN as i do for Fox or MSNBC is because they don't claim to be objective journalists, but CNN does.
Wow, I am amused you still haven't responded.
""Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You have been avoiding this the whole time.
"One person to compared to how many posts CNN produces."
Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake? Van Jones is the most far-left person on CNN, arguably. He hates Trump. For him to say that was big.
"It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right is the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative."
I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism. Those last two can't prove science made the world. Nothing can be proven. The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual.
"If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?"
I haven't debated in 5 months.
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger"
"Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts."
I provided substance and facts that I just repeated that you never responded to. You responded to my claims by saying "Well u r biased and other commenters are doing it for me.." which they didn't respond to my claims before u commented that. That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts.
Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?
I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time.
You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts. You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
No, it's to expose the unfair and bias/selective reporting that happens at CNN, with many fake stories that prove it, which is what this debate will develop around, so I don't want to get too much more into it in comments, I will just let the debate happen to prove my case.
ran out of space.
You also did not address Van Jones, a far leftist frequently on CNN, saying collusion was "just a big nothingburger"
"For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad."
They are not reporting anything pro trump, where as when obama was president, they praised him on everything. All of saying is they clearly have a liberal bias, but they report to be objective journalists, which is not the case.
"For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation."
Because they claim to be unbiased, and have very few guests on that have a different viewpoint from liberals. Fox News always have anti-trump and liberal guests on, because they actually show the other side a lot, unlike "unbiased" CNN.
"In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable."
The Russia Collusion narrative. The days directly after it came out there was no collusion, CNN viewership went way down, in some cases up to 50%. Your claim leads me into the next thing you said which is my proof.
"You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception."
Can u give examples or further proof plz?
ok i get it u don't wanna respond to my points and instead go back to feelings, not facts.
Well then most factual statements on Fox News are factual too. What's your point? That is completely opinionated.
How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump? Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/
Or the whole russia thing was a lie? Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.
Previously you said " For it to be Fake News you need to find a clip of [Someone] knowing it was false information but still reported on it."
Well, i guess i have done so and proved u wrong.
Van Jones, a far-leftist, was also caught on tape saying russia was "just a big nothingburger"
To your point, before, yes, facts don't care about your feelings.
Like I said, your the only one who said i need "50% or more" to win. I never said that, and that isn't the criteria.
Of course I could point out more fake news, those 3 were just some popular examples. I'm not gonna go back 5 years and look at every single show and decide that 50% is fake news. Use common sense.
"Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading"
You misunderstood my point. I could care less about all this "what left say is true and not misleading" but "right news is misleading" that is completely objective and opinionated. I'm saying they say they are unbiased journalists, which is misleading to viewers because they have a leftist agenda but pretend everything they say is true and completely objective.
" I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news."
Showed 4 examples in my opening argument.
"That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes."
Um ok CNN just made "mistakes?" I don't think so. They knew they were putting out and alleging all these things without having all the facts and context. So them ruining covington kid's reputation, calling him "racist" and "mocking of native americans" and calling him all these terrible things was just a "mistake?" It sounds like they were spreading lies and so desperately wanting to destroy trump and his supporters, especially when CNN insists on "fact-checking" all the time. Of course they didn't cover a conservative getting assaulted by another person on the UC Berkely campus, oh no, because that would ruin there agenda. Doesn't sound like objective journalism to me.
"You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are."
Other way around chief, u brainwashed libtards cant even see your own bias.
misleading viewers imo is fake news. Ok? That's my definition. I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%". I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased.
It doesn't have to be intentional. Misleading viewers on facts without having full context or basing news off allegations are some. Like the Covington kid, they took a 2 min. clip out of a 2 hour video and made a kids reputation look very bad calling him"racist" without knowing or researching context.
misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information.
There is no one set definition, it is a pretty broad term but i am sorta combining those two definitions. Dont overcomplicate it.
There is no one set definition of fake news. It has different meanings. What I am talking about is misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information.
omar, using wiki as a definition website is not a good place to define. When hosts or cooper spread fake news, they're not gonna admit that it is false or misleading, because they want viewers to believe it.
Ragnar, crap like that of "50% or more" just to prove a point of "BOP" is what I dislike about these tryhard websites. I'm trying to have a casual debate and you tryhards over complicate it a lot. The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims. Then I provide rebuttals to those. There's no set "BOP" on 1 person. So don't vote on crap like 50% or more fake news, I am saying in general they spread false information and I gave specific examples. I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a "fake news network" because these things are not measurable nor quantifiable.
Well dang. U gonna respond to the fake news debate?
the evidence is scientific research and the globe and maps and projected sizes based on evidence.
dang i just got so roasted, u don't even know me. I'm not being serious with this flat earth stuff. Judging based on this isn't a fair assessment. I was undefeated on DDO when it was actually good, in the top 100 leaderboard and top debater for my age group. I haven't debated a lot recently, but one of my best debates is my first one on this website on gun control. And honestly idc about people's opinions of who's smarter or better debater or wutever. We all have our different strenghts in subjects, and some might be more experienced then others, but is it for fame or wut? Who cares if ur top 5 or wutever? I use this as a community with friends like Alec and me and alec don't care who's better cuz we've both made some pretty darn good debates already and we help each other and educate each other with our different strengths on topics. And honestly, Alec is super smart especially for being autistic and i rly enjoy his debates as he usually is respectful but still roasts liberals. btw ik autistics brains are dif and in some parts they are slow to learn but i also think/heard they are exceptionally smart and their brain functions much higher than normal people on certain things as well. (correct me if im wrong)
lol i won't rise to that bait but thx for ur opinion lmao
ok u make no sense but i have actually been converted to the #conspiracyillogicalflatearthsociety thanks to this video of evidence-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07O3Z8cQ4Ao