THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS

this is where it happened

Here's that debate.

You're welcome, even though it didn't turn out in your favor. I note, however, that you remain at the top on the leaderboard. Congratulations for that. Undefeated is not all it's cracked up to be [I can afford to say that, having lost]. The ruthlessness, fairly and nobly applied will return, I am certain.

Thank you! That means a lot coming from someone with your reputation

Thanks for voting, fauxlaw!

Thanks for voting!

Congratulations, Fruit_Inspector! Well argued.

Thank you. This site certainly does represent many schools of thought. It has been helpful in forcing me to be more consistent and clear in presenting both conservatism and Christianity.

Dang. Well done, king slayer!

I like to see good conservative debaters on the site.

now its your turn to end your win streak!

Thanks! And a 95 win streak is an amazing feat for oromagi. Like you said, that is probably the longest streak we will see.

Congratulations! You ended the longest win streak we are likely to ever see. 95 confirmed, or even 98 if you count the forgone conclusions in the voting period.

That I think this debate is deserving of attention, should only speak highly of both you and your opponent. That I deleted votes in obvious disregard for the voting standards, is nothing against you. If in the next hour or two vote bombs come in against you (I doubt it will happen, Oro isn’t the type to try to rig things) those will be deleted as well.

Ah I see. Since I did not instigate the debate, I will leave any proposed changes to be suggested by oromagi since the instigator frames the debate. While not flashy, I have no problem leaving the description as it was presented. Thanks for the suggestion though.

As a side, since it appears I will likely win, I feel like it would be hard for me to propose any changes that would not be self-aggrandizing.

ikr, and it wasn't even whiteflame who did him in.

Oro is losing!!!
NANI?!?!?!?! :O

I am gonna try to put this debate(or maybe better, even YOU) on the HoF.

This is a historic debate, and that description is kinda bland.

Ah yes. Because a debate about defining the BoP results in personal opinion on a conduct vote. DART 2020

Well I appreciate that, thank you

It shouldn't impact the debate. All the more reason to question the reason the question was posed to begin with. But given that I did promise that I would keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate, let me congratulate you on a well-argued position. You, for the many reasons I already listed, were quite adept at identifying the onuses, and satisfying your own. Your arguments were concise, focused, and straight-to-the-point. Well done, Fruit_Inspector.

Don't worry, I'm not too concerned the amount of notifications. I was just wondering if I was missing some context about what impact changing the debate description would have.

He's been oddly interested in *bumping* this debate, having done it several times and then deleting his comments afterwards. If I were to guess, his question--unprompted--would be yet another attempt at *bumping* this debate during the voting period. One would imagine that if you or oromagi were concerned with the content of the short description, you would've brought it to his attention. My response to these "antics" to my chagrin have been less than savory.

Let me apologize to you, and oromagi, if my feud with the moderation has flooded you with unnecessary notifications. From here on out, I'll keep the commentary strictly focused on the content of the debate.

Just out of curiosity, was there an issue that prompted this question? I haven't read through all of the comments and am wondering if this has something to do with the controversy regarding Athias' vote, or something else. Thanks

The current short description reads: “ Required rating=1000 Anybody is welcome to accept this debate”

Would you both like it changed to any statement about this debate or something? Such changes can be easily made so long as this is still in the voting period.

""Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not."

Neither party has to "dispute" the other person's conduct in order for it to be considered in a vote. If so, then please show me in the Voting Policy where it states that.

"There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor."

When was it "mutually agreed"? You mean there's a tacit agreement made by both parties upon accepting the debate? Once again, according to the guideline, I DON'T HAVE to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech in of mutually agreed upon rules, so long as I can substantiate that it was unfair--an option discretely presented in the guideline, notably through the disjunction "OR."

"Your argument itself is nonsensical"

Your disagreement does not inform "nonsensical."

" your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be"

Aren't you the doing the same thing you allege that I'm doing? Weren't you the one who said debate was about "cornering your opponent"? And on whose "whim" should MY VOTE be based? I never employ "whim" when it concerns participating in or analyzing debate.

"It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."

No, it most certainly IS NOT. Just because you see it practiced here commonly doesn't mean that it is a "basic function" of debate. The burden of proof will always be determined by the proposition itself. Satisfying the burden is contingent on the affirmation or negation.

"You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate."

It is a "norm" here. It IS NOT a norm of debate. And please point out where in the guidelines it expressly forbids one from "challenging one of the well-established norms..."

"BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for."

You've just imputed a contradiction. If this is the case, then the Burden of Proof cannot be left to the outline of that which "you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge."

You guys once again are making stuff up. I've read through the guidelines, and I've read the policies. There's nothing in them which expressly forbids my awarding conduct on that basis that I chose.

"Predetermining the BoP" was something CON could have disputed, but he did not. He accepted a debate with a BoP outlined in the description and did not dispute it in the arguments, which means he was fully consensual in that agreement.

There is no "unfairness" about something mutually agreed to, as long as neither party is being pressured by an outside factor.

Your argument itself is nonsensical and based on your own personal whim about what a debate should or shouldn't be. It is literally one of the most basic functions of debate to outline what you believe to be the BoP for you and your opponent to the judge. You're not just "interpreting things differently," you're challenging one of the well-established norms of debate.

I will also add that "the BoP is defined by the resolution" is false. BoP is defined by your POSITION & ROLE relative to the resolution (i.e. are you PRO or CON. Are you the one making the claim or the one challenging it?). This is again the implicit norm for debate, and challenging it in your vote is uncalled for.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I award no distinction in conduct under protest.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

"The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

No. The whole point of debate is to substantiate the affirmation or negation of a proposition. "Cornering" is for pugilism.

You guys are making up your own rules. You removed my vote because it didn't "follow" voting guidelines, and now you're subjecting my vote to a standard that's not present in the guideline. Read the guideline again: "Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, OR (once again OR) in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate. That means I don't have to demonstrate that it was either "excessive" or in breech of mutually agreed upon rules. I can choose anyone of those reasons, so long as I can substantiate it. And in this case, I chose to acknowledge how "unfair" it was to predetermine the "burden of proof" since it manipulates the construction of either party's argument.

You don't have to "agree" with me, but I DID EXPLAIN my reasons. And I've seen conduct points awarded in a similar fashion.

Keep in mind, the statement "As long as it fits voter guidelines." (I will also add, that under context I was specifically talking about argument point allocation. If the voter had assigned conduct willy nilly, that would have been removed too)

According to the guidelines, docking conduct generally needs to be under the pretense of a brazen and obvious violation. I read this debate, there was nothing even approaching a violation of conduct.

Like seldiora quotes from the ext. moderation policies:

"Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards)."

The whole point of debate is to try to corner your opponent. I will restate: "Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

"I am tired of repeating this, but it looks like I'll need to once again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines.

To quote our Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached."

Mods can step in to prevent decisions that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise our interpretive ability is severely handicapped."

When you stated this, was it a lie? Please explain how my award of conduct was "indisputably" in violation of CoC rules.

Merely waiting for Ragnar's go-ahead, but he did it before me.

"As a neutral bystander that also happens to be a voting mod, if Ragnar hadn't deleted your vote, I probably would've. We were discussing whether it was worth it to remove it, (your vote has been flagged for the past 3 days) but as for your vote being a violation of voting guidelines, that much is undisputable.

Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer."

Then why didn't you? The rules state that vote of conduct must demonstrate the following:

1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

The only thing I fell short of was explicitly comparing each of their conduct. Suffices to say, that I thought it unnecessary since oromagi in my view was the only person who exhibited this particular misconduct.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I will be copying my previous RFD in the comments

>Reason for Mod Action:

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

Continued bogus voting will result in revocation of voting privileges until such time as you are willing to abide by the voting policy.

Reason for Decision (continued):

Lastly, the Contender, albeit concise, does an adept job at clarifying the onuses they each bear by the end of third Round. PRO was attempting to move the goal post by focusing on accuracy without connecting it back to either his proposition or even his own definition (i.e. "reliable.") The Contender doubles down in round 3 and let's everyone know that over which they are debating: "Which is more reliable?" And according to the definition submitted by PRO, reliable would be described as "better suit[ed] or fit to be relied on; more worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; more dependable, more trustworthy." A definition, which should be noted was taken from "Wiktionary" which shares a parent company with Wikipedia. I say that because it is reasonable to presume that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" would also have been taken from "Wiktionary." PRO did not do a sufficient job in meeting the description of his own definition, which suggests that the sources of information would be more "trustworthy," "dependable," etc. The contender remains focused on his burden and satisfies his onus by demonstrating that Wikipedia suggests of itself that it isn't a reliable source of information at all.

Thus, the winner of this debate in my view is without doubt, Fruit_Inspector.

Reason for Decision:

This was a rather interesting debate between PRO, oromagi, and CON, Fruit_Inspector.

Now on to the reasons for my decision.

Spelling and Grammar: They were both pretty fine with regard to this aspect of the debate.

Conduct: I awarded the conduct point to the Contender because it is not PRO's prerogative to DEFINE the burden of proof. The burden of proof is determined by the proposition itself. As the one who proposed the proposition, and thereby affirm its truth, it's PRO's onus to demonstrate that Wikipedia is "a more reliable source for information than FOX NEWS." Contrary to PRO's outline, CON is not only required to demonstrate that FOX NEWS is a "more reliable source of information than Wikipedia." It's the contender's onus to either negate PRO's affirmation, or demonstrate that PRO's affirmation isn't supported by sufficient evidence. The Contender can negate the argument in three ways: (1) demonstrate that Wikipedia is as reliable as FOX NEWS, and vice versa, (2) FOX NEWS is more reliable, and (3) Wikipedia isn't reliable at all. The contender chose the third option. PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct. It creates an UNFAIR debating environment, cuffing the approaches CON can indulge to satisfy his onus as described above. This is not like presetting definitions, which establish a uniform standard of communication. This is in essence dictating how the other party is to construct his argument. My award of conduct to the contender is not a demonstration of impolite behavior on either participant given that they were both polite toward each other. It's a reflection of debate decorum.

Better sources: I also awarded the better sources point to the contender. As meticulous as PRO is in providing sources, the sources are meaningless if they do not INFORM the truth of one's position. Many of the sources PRO provided fail to account for the integrity of their own information. That is, they don't provide any methodology as to how they gauged the accuracy or inaccuracy of their subject's information, much less its reliability, "trustworthiness and dependability," the objective of this debate. Some were opinion pieces (e.g. Washington Post article.) Not to mention, particularly with the POLITIFACT links, their links to the information they cited led nowhere. It led to a page which stated, "Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!" PRO did not do his due diligence in verifying his own sources. The contender on the other hand, while providing fewer sources, cited information directly relevant to his argument. And upon examining his sources, there were no dead links among them. This is clearly a case of quality over quantity, so I awarded the point to the Contender, alone.

Better Arguments: Now, it is my firm belief that CON won this in the first round. And CON won this debate by citing the apparent paradox. Wikipedia itself suggests that it isn't a reliable source of information, which CON pointed out and sourced. So logically, we can only scrutinize the affirmation or negation of Wikipedia's statement. If Wikipedia is stating the truth, then Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information at all. (CON Wins.) If Wikipedia is stating a falsehood, then Wikipedia is on some level inaccurate (weakens PRO's argument.) PRO addresses this paradox with a non sequitur, "we are comparing the relative reliability of two entities." CON does well to address this in round two when he states, "My argument is ultimately not about where Wikipedia is compared to Fox News on a scale of source reliability. My argument is ultimately that Wikipedia cannot even be categorized as a reliable source for information. It cannot even be placed on the scale of reliability because it doesn’t belong there at all." PRO continues with the non sequitur statements in Round 3 (that Wikipedia isn't a source of information at all, WHICH CON DOES NOT ARGUE,) and CON again does well to address them.

Furthermore, PRO does not do a sufficient job at all in outlining the reason BIAS =/= reliable, OBJECTIVE = reliable, ACCURACY = reliable. He defines neither objective nor bias, which for his argument bred confusion since he used the term "objective" in two different contexts (e.g. "FOX starts with a political OBJECTIVE and organizes facts to forward that goal," and "...hundreds of competing individual interest is not more likely to deliver OBJECTIVE information than state or corporate controlled sources.") PRO continued to misrepresent CON's arguments, as well as his own sources: PRO claimed that there were HUNDREDS of articles written about the inaccuracies of FOX NEWS in Round Two, but cites an NYT article about President Trump's statements about FOX NEWS, the accuracy of which were being scrutinized, not FOX NEWS itself.

To be continued...

I can see you trying to throw the same vote back up with the same justification. You will not be able to do that unless you properly justify the conduct violation.

As a neutral bystander that also happens to be a voting mod, if Ragnar hadn't deleted your vote, I probably would've. We were discussing whether it was worth it to remove it, (your vote has been flagged for the past 3 days) but as for your vote being a violation of voting guidelines, that much is undisputable.

Docking conduct points for Oromagi cornering their opponent through debate framework is like telling a construction worker they can not use a hammer.

Good luck with that.

And please abide by the voting policy on any future votes you cast:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

So seldiora is not "100% convinced" that I was justified in awarding a point of conduct, and my vote is removed. I've had enough of your antics: I'm reporting you.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Athias // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments, sources, and conduct to con.
>Reason for Decision:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2564/comment-links/32673

>Reason for Mod Action:

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************

Thank you for your work explaining the flawed conduct award.

Quote from your vote to follow:

CONDUCT:
Athias argues that “PRO's attempt to pigeonhole the Contender's capacity in the debate, especially with a prerogative he does not have, is a demonstration of poor conduct.”

However, Debate Art section for conduct says:

In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
*Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
*Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
*Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).

I’m not 100% convinced by Athias’s justification. It’s entirely accepted behavior, and within good conduct, to be slightly underhanded and suggest what may be a strawman for the opponent to attempt to counter. For example, let’s say in a debate about Gun Control in the US, where I am pro. We have shared burden of proof. I claim, with no previous explanation in the description: “Con must show that getting rid of gun control policy will benefit legislation.”

Now of course, I could be fooling the opponent. It could be about morals. It could be about economics. Framing the debate one way or another, despite many different methods of attack, is not bad conduct. It could be that I consider the idea of legalization/implementation gun control policy more important than the idea of morality of gun control, or economic benefits of reducing gun control. So here I believe that Pro is trying to state that his framing considers the “random person gaining information” idea rather than “scholarly research” as con attempts. It just so happens that Con’s is actually more important, as it establishes a baseline for standard.

As such, I will be rewarding PRO conduct to negate Athias’s vote for Conduct point, and awarding CON the Argument point.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Arguments to con, conduct to pro.
>Reason for Decision:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Coitgg76Y_Tl_V3KE76WdpxscdiqJuaWXMJUbs-D4JY/edit?usp=sharing

>Reason for Mod Action:

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

Votes based on other votes are not allowed. In future please just report the offending vote.
**************************************************

It's really happening. Whiteflame just confirmed it. Oromagi has lost his first debate.

~Insert desperate racking of brain on how to possibly satirize this here~

But we cannot give any debater the benefit of an "assumption." PRO is typically adept at presetting his definitions. Had he established a journalistic standard of reliability, or even just an academic one, then PRO would've had a fighting chance. Of course, pro would've had to demonstrate quantification because he's arguing that it's "more" reliable, not just reliable.

And notice in Round Three, CON was able to expand the concept of reliability by contradicting PRO's attempt to focus on "bias" and "accuracy" by claiming there was more to reliability. We cannot assume that reliability = (less) bias + (more) accuracy. Even if we did, the methodology which was used to examine both would still have to be present and substantiated.

If this debate was "It is more philosophically justifiable to trust in Wikipedia as a reliable source of information than Fox News", he would have to define trust because the philosophy behind trust is more complex than accuracy and bias. However, because Con agrees with Brooklyn university and tries to have Pro shoot himself in the foot, we accept that accuracy + bias form together trustworthiness as a result.

think of it this way, In a "net benefit" debate we do not debate what precisely is actual benefit. There does not need to be an inherent standard (unlike utilitarianism), but rather we evaluate the impacts of the ideals through common sense. Take UBI for example. Obviously you would want to gain 1,000$ dollars financially. The purchase power is a net benefit on its own. Now we bring the US gov in, and say, the budge increase would be a net detriment. There is no Kritik where we say we must have the budget be so great that the gov is completely destroyed, replaced with a better one, because that is simply absurd to think about. Granted, in a non net-benefit debate, we could definitely argue whether to keep the US gov structure, but destroying the entire hierarchy merely to support UBI is insane and head-scratching. Now, personally Whiteflame has told me that it may be plausible to prove in a net benefit debate about public schools, that the entire system is so broken we must completely tear it down and break it back up. But once more, the Charter school relation must be shown that it will indeed challenge the system so much that it will renovate it completely. Even though there is no "universal standard" for "benefit the quality of education" or "benefit the finance", the widely agreed upon standards create a tautology for the beneficial debates.

If the finance grows, it is presumed to be a net benefit. If education results in people learning more information, however useless, it is presumed to be good. Challenging the entire framework system only works in a legality debate, which this is not about. So we have to ... "trust in trust", if you get what I mean.

Sure he hasn't, but with only 5k of argument, it is assumed that based on Brooklyn University's basic standard of evaluating reliability that Wiki adheres to it the most. It just so happens that he wasn't able to outweigh editing problems and prove Fox's numerous errors. Even Stanford Encyclopedia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/) says Trust is warranted when:

plausible, again, only if the conditions required for trust exist (e.g., some optimism about one another’s ability). Knowing what these conditions are requires understanding the nature of trust.

well-grounded, only if the trustee (the one trusted) is trustworthy, which makes the nature of trustworthiness important in determining when trust is warranted.

justified, sometimes when the trustee is not in fact trustworthy, which suggests that the epistemology of trust is relevant.

justified, often because some value will emerge from the trust or because it is valuable in and of itself. Hence, the value of trust is important.

plausible, only when it is possible for one to develop trust, given one’s circumstances and the sort of mental attitude trust is. For instance, trust may not be the sort of attitude that one can will oneself to have without any evidence of a person’s trustworthiness.

Now of course, there can be two different kinds of trust: 1. Vast majority of rational people believe in some information; 2. The fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt with axiomatic backing. As we cannot use 2 inside this debate, we are forced to deal with the subjective level of trust. The plausibility, grounded nature, and justification of the trust all lead back to emotional bias influencing ideals and accurateness of the fact. It is true that humans can be wrong about their trusted ideals, but in general, experts should be able to deduce ideas and facts better, making the research on wiki that much more reliable than the ones about fox news. Pro just failed to link it back to how knowledge's power allows wiki to win out, compared to Fox's inability to surpass even legal definition of trust. Even with Tabula Rasa in our mind, the establishment of trust is intuitively from our experiences, from gathering information, from repeatedly checking upon facts and thinking over if they are correct. Therefore, philosophically we must accept Oromagi's definition from the basis. Due to the problematic of using tertiary sources and citing the Wiki page for academia, however, Con thoroughly wins here.

But what is the standard of trust? Had PRO established some standard of "reliability" it would've served his onus better than delegating this presumed standard to outside parties like mediabiasfactcheck, forbes, New York Times, etc., the reliability of which haven't been estsablished themselves. Reliability is far too nebulous a concept to even attempt to measure. This was PRO's debate to lose from the beginning.