CNN IS FAKE NEWS
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
So this is mainly a tribute to the disproven lies of "russia collusion" that came to a sad end for libtards a couple days ago. WhAt A sHoCk!
I am arguing CNN is fake news. The main reason is they claim to be unbiased when they clearly are bias AF, but also i will present some other reasons like the Covington kid, etc.
Lots of things you read online especially in your social media feeds may appear to be true, often is not. Fake news is news, stories or hoaxes created to deliberately misinform or deceive readers. Usually, these stories are created to either influence people’s views, push a political agenda or cause confusion and can often be a profitable business for online publishers. Fake news stories can deceive people by looking like trusted websites or using similar names and web addresses to reputable news organisations.
Our mission is to create the finest possible news product and to present hard-breaking, national, and international news, as it unfolds. We deliver unparalleled perspectives across multiple categories, including political, medical, financial, technology, entertainment, and more.At CNN, we know our news and want to share it. Our vision is for the network to be broadcasted to countries all over the world in English and the various regional languages. The journalists at CNN work around the clock, providing the latest news 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We provide live coverage and analysis of news across numerous categories. At CNN, our goal is to deliver accurate information to our viewers with speed so that they are well informed at all times.
In fact, fake news has been around for centuries. In 1814, Charles de Berenger disguised himself as a Bourbon officer and appeared in Dover to announce that Napoleon had been been killed by the Prussians. He sent a semaphore telegraph saying the same to the Admiralty in London, knowing it would be picked up by the press. De Berenger then rode from Dover to London, stopping off at hostelries along the way, and handing out handbills also relaying the dramatic development.Three French “officers” were later seen in London celebrating a Bourbon triumph, and a commemorative parade was even held on London Bridge.The price of gilts soared on the news, prompting de Berenger and his pals, including the three dressed as French officers, to sell the government bonds they’d bought.Subsequently, the government announced there’d been no such victory, and that Napoleon was very much alive. Gilts came crashing down, and de Berenger and his co-conspirators were arrested and charged with fraud.
Is The Onion fake news?Kind of. Strictly speaking, fake news is completely made up and designed to deceive readers to maximise traffic and profit.But the definition is often expanded to include websites that circulate distorted, decontextualised or dubious information through – for example – clickbaiting headlines that don’t reflect the facts of the story, or undeclared bias.
When we see CNN's mission statement, it openly admits it aims to deliver fast news to many people. Not that its ethos is to patiently wait for all things to have concluded before pleasing its audience.
Nick Sandmann sued The Washington Post, not CNN. Here is a non-fake-news CNN report on the matter: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/19/media/nick-sandmann-washington-post-lawsuit/index.html Here is another news source that agrees that it's the Washington Post being sued, not CNN: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/04/how-covingtons-nick-sandmann-could-win-his-defamation-claim-against-washington-post/
But the definition is often expanded to include websites that circulate distorted, decontextualised or dubious information through – for example – clickbaiting headlines that don’t reflect the facts of the story, or undeclared bias.
Please, go ahead and instead of using an ex-Producer's words, which come from someone who was clearly involved with production and not investigation, let's stick to the facts at hand and avoid delivering Fake News to the voters, shall we?
Pro has violate the Code of Conduct of this website by advertising a YouTube channel that is in a highly revenue-based battle with another for most subscribed-to YT Channel. It is only funny and cute because we assume Pro doesn't work with or have any close relation to anyone profiting from it in real life. Pro could even be reverse-advertising (supporting the other channel or opposing the competition altogether) and trying to make PewDiePie look bad by this. We do not know the motives but it is genuinely advertising.
Forfeiting a Round is considered bad conduct. I couldn't post so instantly to Pro's R2 but did respect him having 5 day leave by stretching things out so he'd have a chance to post his R3 (Pro identifies as male on his profile for now, so that's why I say 'he').
Bad conduct. If I, as Con, did this it would be more obvious why this is bad Conduct as the opponent can't reply to it at all. Pro is forcing Con to need to bring new angles and not be able to smoothly reflect on the debate and appeal to voters as is meant to happen in the Last Round and this is still poor Conduct all around as there wasn't even an apology or explanation.
The first thing to note is that pro does not offer a concrete definition of fake news. This allows con to dominate with the definition - cons attempt to reiterate the definitions lead to a confused and arbitrary definition where it is still largely unclear as to how the flohrase fake news applies.
My issue with the resolution - is that not only does pro need to prove that articles and bias are intentionally leading to false stories - but as he claims CNN as a whole is “fake news”, he has to show this is systematic in cnn.
Pro offers four examples, Smollett, Covington, negative press against Trump, and a collection of claims about Russia. There was a throwaway comment about Acosta which wasn’t detailed enough to weigh.
For the first two, pro offers only asserted conclusions- that CNN rushed to judgement therefore it was purposefully dishonest much of the time - I feel the conclusion doesn’t automatically follow from the premise - and pro offers no arguments to convince me it does: nor does he offer any evidence that there is a wider intentional dishonesty other than these two examples; nor does he offer evidence of intent to mislead.
For the example of negative press coverage - if I assume this is factually correct, this is only evidence of widespread dishonesty if pro also shows the press coverage should not be 90% negative - which he does not; or that the specific coverage is broadly unfair - which he also does not.
The remaining Russian related points pro raises constitute a general assertion that Russian Collusion was a lie, and a couple of examples of members of CNN staff lessening the significance of Russia. In the complete absence of specific context or any detail - pro does not provide me a reason to believe that Van Jones believing that Russian Collusion is a big nothing burger means that the entirety of CNNs reported narrative is deliberately dishonest -likewise pro doesn’t offer an argument as to why the producers comments that there’s no big proof (or the rest) demonstrate their coverage is overly unfair or dishonest. At best it’s a type of heresay - rather than evidence.
Cons rebuttal to the Russian point was short - but brutal. He simply asked pro to show which of the Russian stories are made up. Pro was not able to answer this point. This is particularly devestating as it makes it apparent that despite pros wide ranging claims that the Russian narrative was faked, lies, made up - he is unable to point to a single one of the multiple stories that is actually fake. This point alone, and pros inability to show an example of where CNNs Russian narrative was fake as he claimed - demonstrates how vacuous pros position is.
The remaining issues really boils down to definitions of what fake news is: “CNN is fake news”, in my view cannot be taken to mean simply that one or two stories are inaccurate and get corrected, as con explained and justified with concrete definitions - there must be intent to deceive, and imo there must be substantial patterns of misbehaviour.
As pros primary evidences are offered prima facia as evidence of bias, bad content and fakery - yet cannot be reasonably interpreted to support the contention prima facia; this means pro doesn’t provide the necessary warrant for his main claims about Jesse Smollet, Covington, and Pro simply destroys pros fake collusion narrative with his unanswered question.
Arguments to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
All other points tied.
PRO failed to define their terms in the first round which slowed the conversation down. CON defined theirs right away. CON then gave examples and provided a nuance view on CNN in order to demonstrating the low percentage of "fake news" CNN has done and by putting the burden of proof on PRO.
PRO's arguments on objective reporting "Anyone who reads a CNN article or turns on their night cable news can tell everybody has a leftist bias", this is not a strong evidence. No one can argue against anecdotes and they are not worth much. PRO then failed to understand CON's argument on the differences between messing up on some details to fabricating news. CON then provided more evidence to support their side.
PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about.
PRO failed to define their terms and then forfeited a round which goes against debate ethics, CON defined their terms and properly made arguments the whole time, not forfeited any round.
There is little debate to be had when a consensus cannot be reached in a critical definition such as fake news. The responsibility to clearly define a term with such myriad meaning falls upon the debate creator and should be done before acceptance so as to provide a fair debating environment. Pros failure in this regard should be regarded as poor conduct. And hence, along with the forfeiture of a round, conduct to to Con.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1634
CNN: Trump made a typo on Sri Lanka saying millions of people dead. Imagine if he gets the big stuff wrong.
CNN generally thinks 300 dead is "little stuff"
If it protects minority's so much than again, explain how the smaller states almost have no voice at all and the stronghold states almost have no power.
This is why midwest states and stronghold states almost get no representative at all. Literally everything single state gets thrown aside and the only states that actually get representation are the swing states.
I do not know of a good alternative to this problem yet, although as of right now i'd prefer a well regulated popular vote to the electoral college since in that system nobody gets silenced and everyone gets a voice.
It is based on population so while it still allows voices to be heard from farmers in Nebraska for example, those minority voices do not overshadow the more populated states. Every state counts. Conservatives in California are outnumbered by socialists, but again it does protect other minority voices because it is only a certain amount of delegates per state. Would you have an alternative to both systems if you believe they both silence voices?
The electoral college silences more than it voices. For example conservative voters in california almost have no voice at all, or Democrats in texas.
Secondly the electoral college puts too much power into the hands of the swing states. Why do you think the majority of candidates don't bother visiting stronghold states too often and instead focus all of their attention to the swing states?
Our country has never been a democracy yet is the best in the world. I prefer a democratic republic because then if it is a democracy it is mob rule, which would turn into a dictatorship. Electoral College protects minority voices while at the same time letting majority be heard, but not to the extent they overshadow everybody else. It isn't an oligarchy, half of the people like Trump in our country. Good thing we don't have you running the laws or else the U.S. would be a disaster.
Guess you are against a democracy. Guess you would prefer a monarchy or a dictatorship. Don't worry about it the US is already an oligarchy so it's almost there.
>> There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
I already addressed this in comment 138. I said: "He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate." This was for the voter both an issue of sourcing/evidence and argumentation. The vote is borderline, but I do not believe there is a clear-cut case for removing it.
He didn't say how they were conspiracy or unreliable. He generalizes the websites as consipracy, but does not show how the actual sources given were conspiracy or unreliable, which is what he should do.
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Mere appeals to quantity are not sufficient to justify awarding sources points.
There’s no discussion on how it impacted the debate
The only thing I see that he didn’t do which is required is Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. There’s no discussion on that impact
He pointed specific examples of sources that were conspiracy and unreliable, not just a generalization. Because of that the vote is fine.
I still stand by my statement he is not justifying sources. I dropped it after you said it doesn't matter whether the voter addresses the actual sources or not. A rule change I propose is making the voter address the reliability of the sources cited, not the website behind the sources. And that is very reasonable. I said he is lying because he said everyone of my sources were conspiracy theorists. If I voted on your debate and said your source wasn't reliable because it is fake news and a leftist neo-nazi website, would you accept that vote?
Rule changes aren't indicated at this time. The rules are not there to ensure that all votes are "good," but merely to curb the most egregious kinds of failures voters can commit. In that respect, the standards constitute a floor, not a ceiling--a bare minimum--of what a vote must do.
Besides, you're shifting the goalposts. At first you allege that the voter wasn't properly justifying sources. That allegation was incorrect. Now you allege that the voter was "lying." These are not the same objections. That you are changing your objections to overcome my responses to them suggests your issue is more about the verdict that the voter reached and less about the RFD itself. That's a dispute properly left to you and the voter to navigate, and is not the legitimate purview of moderation to review.
If that vote is allowed to stand, you need some rule changes to prevent blatant lies.
>> he was talking about the argument, not sources.
He was talking about both.
>> He does not expand on the conspiracy claim.
The rules do not require him to expand on this claim in-depth. What he has is sufficient to meet the standard.
Our country was never founded on democracy and never has been a democracy. Corporations don't own the country. Explain.
He does not expand on the conspiracy claim. Alex Jones didn't write the article, and the voter fails to explain how they are conspiracy theorists.
When he was using anecdotal, he was talking about the argument, not sources.
>>Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic
So you are against democracy and for corporations owning the country. Good to know.
Your vote will stand, but I believe it was bias. I am not going to prove it because it wouldn't get it removed.
Some people are voting against me in a bias manner and I have got them removed, particularly the clear bias of vsp19.
>Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.
Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.
>> He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate
He argues that the anecdotal nature of the evidence you presented undermined your argument. So, yes, he does explain how sources impacted the debate.
>> The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
The voter directly evaluates several sources. The voter made these evaluations when they wrote: "PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites."
Your definition of source is overly narrow. "Source" does not necessarily mean the underlying data, but at a minimum means the reporter of the information. CNN is a news "source," even if it is not itself the underlying data it reports.
>>Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
Biased doesn't mean I was wrong and you would have to prove that impacted my vote so much that I was lying just because I have something against whatever idea you hold.
>>people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better
I did which is why you people are voting against you and I just don't like the ideas you hold so you lose both ways.
>>Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.
Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
You are comparing the election to a debating site where the number of conservatives and liberals vary as a minute percentage of the 130M people in our country. Plus, people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better, so your point is nonsensical.
Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about."
Rules: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate" He does not explain how my sources impacted the debate.
"Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support." The voter does not directly evaluate one source.
He attacks the websites for being "conspiracy theorists" but does not look at the actual articles cited, which is what the rules say, sources, not the website. If I voted and said someone in the debate using Fox News is not a good source because it is very right wing, that does not address the actual sources, which are reporting information, but rather the overall website.
Was mine unfair?
>>No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes
Sad really you would have thought since Trump won the election there would be more people on your side. Guess numbers don't lie. Hillary had more votes but Trump still won because of the electoral college. Oh well.
The voter surveyed those arguments that they judged to be the main arguments, met all 3 criteria for awarding sources, and justified the conduct points. It may or may not be a good vote, but it is not a removable one.
And do far in this debate I have had 5 votes removed and 2 not removed, one of which is borderline. That's a pretty high success rate. I report votes I deem unfair or not up to voting standards. No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes.
vsp19 only addressed 1-2 argument points. For his sources, he does not explain up to the site standards and addresses only his opinion about the website as a whole, not the specific article's i cited.
Wow you really are not liking everyone voting against you.
Sheesh you even reported mine. Virtuoso already cleared this and bsh1 is more lenient so I doubt you can get your way.
Do also report votes that have you winning in order to not be hypocritical.
Sure I can't show proof but I have a hunch you can't take it when you are wrong.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PythonCee // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited one round. The contender used better arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
If you are a new member read the voting rules in CoC. This isn't DDO.
Please do not message or tag us in a comment every time you wish to report a vote. Simply click the flag icon, and we will attend to it as soon as we can.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: It is pro's responsibility to define his terms at the beginning so CON can come argue against them. As PRO did not define their terms, it slowed down the conversation. CON defined their terms and followed with reliable arguments to back their position. PRO misrepresented CON's position multiple times and got angry when CON pointed that out.
PRO has violated the Code of Conduct by advertising a youtube channel, by forfeiting a round and by being disrespectful towards CON the duration of the whole debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter still has not completed any of the three steps necessary to award argument points. Second, there is no effort made to justify awarding sources points. These points must be justified. Third, the voter, while referencing specific cases of alleged poor conduct, fails to demonstrate how this poor conduct was "excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate." The voter also does not explicitly compare the debaters' conduct. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by completing all three steps for justifying argument, sources, and conduct points. The site voting policy can be accessed here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
look at the most recent vote. He makes generalizations and doesn't survey the main arguments, as well as not addressing the semantics by con. His conduct point, particularly me "disrespecting" con, is shown to have no examples of such a thing and is his own opinion.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: PRO did not define the term "Fake news" in the opening statement. CON did a good job refuting PRO's arguments and CON just tapdanced around rather than respond.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the conduct points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the conduct points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: I'm sorry, this is a mess even to me. We have pro not giving a definition of fake news in first round and con defines it. When Pro does try to bring in definitions neither one of them apply to the sources and arguments made.
The arguments are not founded therefore i will not specifically cover them.
Pro's links show "Negative" but not "Fake or false reporting" Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link. con actually gives helpful links to show Cnn's history and later on the fraudulent nature of the definition of "Fake news." I feel pro didn't show that Cnn is fake news, and that con didn't prove that Cnn is "Not fake" or truthful in its reports. therefore no points to argument. Con had more reliable sources in defining fake news and Cnn history.
Both had same S and G
Pro forfeited round 3 and introduced new information at last round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order to award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. I think we get some information regarding the first of these three steps, but we're clearly missing the next two steps. All three steps must be completed to award sources points. By updating the RFD with analysis covering these latter steps, the voter can cast a sufficient vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited round 3, regardless of the reasoning this is poor conduct on Pro's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "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." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
lol ur so funny and quick witted bro 😂😂
Is this your boat?... reference
https://www.amazon.com/Whose-Boat-This-Aftermath-Hurricane/dp/1982121084/ref=asc_df_1982121084/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312057360383&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6676387839142467313&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9030038&hvtargid=pla-569410034604&psc=1
Sorry to bother you so much with some of these inexperienced voters. Can you remove vsp19's vote? Clearly he hasn't read the COC and voting rules.
Thanks for being fair. I appreciate it sincerely.
Now we are getting somewhere! You see, i entirely missed those 4 links. Yep, completely missed them. I am sorry for doing so, i suppose im not cut out for reading alot of stuff. And because you were willing to show me that i messed up, I now will take better effort to not skip over links.
You are very vague on your sources. "Con's link showed the suing of Washington post and not Cnn, therefore disproving pro's link."
I actually disproved his claims in the next round, giving 4 credible sources which RM pretty much conceded to. Look at other votes and read the policy's before publishing votes, it would help you.
Or, you could ask me why i voted in such manner. I feel i explained the sources well enough. and i believe your forfiture made more impact conduct wise than rational telling voters how to vote.
In order to award sources points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
I explained how your sources and con's impacted the debate, I evaluated multiple sources and told of how it affected the arguments and i explained why rational's sources were superior over yours.
If you wish for my vote to be taken down, it would most likely be because i didn't go over the arguments. Not because of sources.
Bsh will be removing the vote tomorrow and taking care of the rest of the log.
Can you take a look at melcharaz's vote? He barely explains sources at all and he doesn't show the poor conduct by con.
Make a debate and I will accept if I want to.
More than likely I will.
Thanks!
I will do so right now.