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
Great biased vote. I'm not going to particpate in the comment wars you keep instigating. Make a debate if you want to debate it.
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.
Your source point
Both gave sources but one gave evidence to why his definition of Fake News is correct compared to the other which didn't instead simply said "There are multiple definitions on fake news." without showing a source for his own Fake News definition.
Evaluate at least one source and compare the two and how it better supported their case
Not a problem. ON the second read, I need you to go more in-depth on the source point.
Thank you.
Sorry for the long read.
vote reported: omar2345 // Mod action: not removed
Reason: This vote is fine
"It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness."
You got this from Ben Shapiro? Haha. You seriously can't think for yourself and you need your conservative idols to think for you. The problem here is that public healthcare gives affordability, quality and accessibility. Which means Ben is wrong and since you are parroting him you are also wrong. If there were so good at something why are they so bad when compared to other countries?
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-in-hospital-mortality-rate-for-acute-myocardial-infarction-ischemic-stroke-and-hemorrhagic-stroke-2015
"Something being a necessity does not make it a right."
Whose making that argument? I did not.
What is a right then?
"I still debate intellectually without throwing insults."
You can't debate me intellectually when you are an anti-intellectual. It doesn't make sense and I would say the Republican party is the party of irrationality which believes in God and still have people who deny climate change and support America even though they are committing genocide in places like Yemen.
"Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂"
So you actually watch FOX for the entertainment? Wow. If not guess you like your news subjective.
"More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness"
What? You did not deny what I said but made a worse point than I did. Different views does not mean more objectivity. For something to be a fact other ideas must be incorrect. This is dependent on what is being talked about but from your statement I doubt you even know that.
"No wear does it say they don't want accurate information."
So are you saying FOX wants to give accurate information? That is objectivity in news. If you don't say that then my point that they are reactionaries is still valid because you did not rebut that claim.
"Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad."
Liberal doesn't mean wrong and you can still be doing objective reporting while only being liberal. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you.
"Ran out of space nxt comment..."
Not addressed in the next comment so you basically wasted my time with this response.
I would never assert that they did, we are humans after all. to sin and err is our nature.
Those things are debateable though. No news org. is unbiased or doesn't have flaws.
Glad we agree on something.
"How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well."
It is too expensive, drives down doctors, raises taxes, and is not quality. It also gets rid of people's private insurance, which is completely wrong. There are 3 things you can get in healthcare- affordability, universality, and quality. Each health care system guarantees no more than 2. Private healthcare you get affordability(which I would like costs to go down on more), and quality. Public healthcare you can get universality and affordability, but then everyone would have equally poor quality. Or you could have universality and quality, in which the country would go bankrupt to to it's ridiculous expensiveness.
Something being a necessity does not make it a right. Food is a necessity, but I do not have the right to take it from you or force you to give it to me. Similarly, healthcare is a necessity for someone in need of medical assistance, but they do not have the right to go to a doctor and demand treatment they cannot afford.
" I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement."
This is a perfect example of the liberal mindset. Because you have different political opinions than me, I can shame you. This statement you made is an opinion, and is very shaky ground. I would argue the same for liberals, that they are stupid, but that doesn't get you anywhere and doesn't make you look intellectual. I respect and understand their views, and think there views are stupid, but I don't shame them. I still debate intellectually without throwing insults. They simply have a different opinion than me.
I liked jon stewarts views of fox, there are videos of him debating with fox members and showing the blatant misinformation or double standards they impose on others.
"You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you."
Your the one who thought FOX reported to be objective 😂
"Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you."
More different views means more different views being expressed to viewers, which means more objectiveness.
"Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1)."
That is a general statement. Going off one sentence for each network is not very bright. No wear does it say they don't want accurate information.
CNN wants to, yet why would I believe CNN? They have given unreliable information so many times as I outlined in the debate. Everybody knows CNN is liberal. Literally everybody. If you fail to recognize that I feel bad.
"Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party."
This is actually sad lmao yes it is a reliable study as far as the actual stats go, again, it never says those 60% are right it is just a survey of people's opinions.
Ran out of space nxt comment...
"but educate your mind, so here I go."
You don't even know what you are talking about yet you think you can educate me? It is really ironic coming from you.
"where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all."
Objective journalism can be achieved without having a conservative for each liberal. Conservatism and liberalism are ideas which mean a liberal can give the conservative point of view but guess that is not good enough for you.
"No cable news network is objective."
Sad to see Fox News are just a bunch of reactionaries.
“FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jleonard/CDAE195spring2016/Emily%20K%20fox%20news.pdf
Whereas CNN actually want to have "accurate information" as a goal (See RM quote in Round 1).
"OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right,"
Wow dismissing something you deem "Reliable study's"? Really goes to show how little you care about evidence. Don't worry you are at home with the Republican party.
"I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work."
How many developed nations do you need before you realise public healthcare works? Guess you still can't give evidence. Oh well.
"Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual."
No what I should do is allow them to spout their anti-intellectual positions? Remember when you said "educate your mind". I class that as an insult so you are a hypocrite. I shame people who are incapable of being rational but have no barrier apart from their emotion clouding their judgement. Facts don't care about your feelings. Really should find another profile picture it is really insulting for the actual intellectuals.
"So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends."
I have nothing else today right now but educate your mind, so here I go.
FOX admits they have a conservative point of view, specifically on primetime night shows. Their daytime reporting is actually pretty unbiased, shows like Shephard Smith, Bret Bair, and Chris Wallace(who is a bit left of center) report both sides and dont have a strong bias either way. I would also like to mention FOX, no matter what show, always has a lot of liberal guests on to talk with and have a good amount on both sides, where as CNN barely has any Trump supporters on at all.
No cable news network is objective. I watch them because I like to learn more from a Conservative viewpoint, learn more from guests on the show(both parties) and to also watch Tucker Carlson roast his guests. So yes, to a degree it is entertainment.
"Like this one (cites link) Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them."
OK, I see the study. It doesn't mean or say that those 60% are right, they are reporting their opinions about it. I don't want public healthcare because I believe it doesn't work. Putting shame on people that have a different opinion than you is not very intellectual.
"Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center,"
Like this one https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/ right?
Shame that Republicans don't want public healthcare but you still support them.
"This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias."
So is FOX subjective journalist or too much of a coward to stand by being objective?
If they are not doing objective journalism why do you watch them? For entertainment? Surely you can find something more entertaining than Fox & Friends.
Reliable study's like CDC, Pew Research Center, things like those are normally indisputable studies. However, a lot of other studies are true too. As long as you examine the questions asked in a survey or read the actual report of the study, then you can determine its validity.
"If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true."
See that's where the slippery slope of belief can begin. What makes a study reliable? Because they said so? I'm not just poking at the right wingers here either. Most studies that news shows put out are complete garbage if I'm being totally honest. They're always the first draft of the study and there's not stratification and no follow ups. Maybe some of the more historically well known studies might be exception to this, but the fact that you're willing to take even a single thing they say as a fact is a problem.
well every station has their biases. But the major news channels are still the best in the pack by a wide margin. (I use that term lightly because I think news channels in general are becoming obsolete).
"If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting."
If it is a reliable study or something, than yes, otherwise if they say something like "walls work. That's a fact." I think we both know that "fact" means an opinion you believe true.
This is why I have a critique of CNN way more than FOX or MSNBC, because they claim to be objective journalists, when in fact we all know they clearly have a left-wing bias.
Well, I don't watch pundits generally, so I don't allude to their accuracy. You may be right. I was simply pointing out that them being an alternative source doesn't necessarily make them accurate.
Any opinions they express are, of course, opinions so to allude to their true value is unproductive.
If they express them as facts, I would find that dubious because new pundit are not suppose to call anything a fact. Such is the nature of objective reporting.
They are allowed to express a quote or recorded event as a fact in so far as that it was recorded or quoted, but opinions are just opinions and if a pundit gives an opinion, then I would think it good form to disclaim as much.
That's as far as I'm willing to go on it.
IMO they dont spread fake news. They have a different opinion than the other 10 networks. Good or correct is pretty subjective.
Are you actually going to be that disingenuous and cheap?
You are cherry-picking a meme and cheaply trying to use it against me? Spare me. Semantics is against the COC as well, you know.
I was responding to your round 3 argument in the last round. "as the opponent can't reply to it at all.." And you are trying to tell me I can't post an argument? That is you saying I can't reply to your argument, which is what you are accusing me of doing. How hypocritical. I posted a comment which has remained the top comment until 9 hours a go which reads "Viewers, Sorry, I was on vacation. This wasn't very productive. Apologies, I will still post an argument in the final round."
I even let you know ahead of time. You had in every power of yours to rebuttal my round 4 argument, but chose not to. I posted my round 4 argument as well as a conclusion of my debating, I did both, because I couldn't in round 3. "as the opponent can't reply at all.." You had the last argument! You could have very well rebuttaled and concluded like I did, but again, chose not to.
"This utter nonsense, I don't care if Sandmann says he will sue CNN.."
Right, after you claimed in round 2 to have "non-fake news sources on the matter" implying mine were fake news.
"why did you ignore the entire Russia Collusion?"
I didn't. I gave evidence of CNN admitting the narrative was fake. I'm not going to look through your whole book of articles, read every one, and determine that it is fake news. And you are saying why I didn't respond to this after you failed to respond to the "objective reporting" argument in every single round?
That last round argument on your part was such crap and you know it. You probably didn't respond to the arguments because you know I got good evidence against it and backed it up with facts. Unbelievable, really.
does alternative necessarily equal good or correct?
My alternative to the moon landing hoax could be a different moon landing hoax, does that make it right?
Fox News is the only alternative voice in the 11 major cable news networks, which are all liberal.
just sensationalism and assertion similar to fox news
Viewers,
Sorry, I was on vacation. This wasn't very productive. Apologies, I will still post an argument in the final round.
CNN is not a source of fake news because it's not CNN's practice to make things up. That's what fake news means. Trump is a source of fake news because he makes things up all the time, including the allegation that CNN is a source of fake news. I don't see that this debate is winnable unless RM completely drops the ball.
*round 3
Seeing as how pro is going to ff in 42 minutes, Con pretty much won the debate on all levels minus spelling and grammar
There are so few debates that might unzero the "TV" debate category with accuracy. It is a shame this debate missed that chance.
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%.
That was a painful source to skim through (cold stone)...
"52% neg and 48% pos. (fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)."
So apparently if any source is off by even 2%, it's fake news to be complained about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wG_h3U568w)... Got to wonder how they would rank by their own standards.
...
Also subscribed to PewDiePie.
I will prove my case.
"impossible to underestimate"
What you did there, I see.
Triggered, I am not.
https://images.app.goo.gl/d2oLDE96KtQwSg6R8
I literally spelt out what you need to do to win my vote - by proving fake news. If you want to ignore the logical problems with your position and namecall - be my guest.
If you want to go through the debate and not prove it - also be my guest. If RM doesn’t pick up on you asserting bad facts, then you can still win.
Take a stab at how likely you think that is, given where RM is on the leaderboard and given that it is impossible to underestimate how intelligent he is - especially at picking out subtle meaning and details from what people place in debates.
"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."
Yeah you are too far gone to save. Ben is a talking conservatives who goes to College campuses to conflate his ego who stays in his studio at Daily Wire where no-one can challenge. There are exceptions like Sam Harris where he made him look like a fool but his speeches are not debates. Shapiro would lose to an intellectual. Shapiro is not. When you take away the crowd he can't use them to confirm his position instead has to actually keep up with an intellectual.
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.
Good luck - make sure it is proof, if it is like the information you’ve outlined thus far, RM should be able to obliterate you for the reasons I’ve states. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.
"damn i got roasted you sound like an intellectual titan with those ben shapiro fire roasts."
That is disrespectful. Ramshutu uses logic whereas Shapiro is an anti-intellectual.
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.
Let’s ignore, for the moment, that a substantial number of your points are incorrect - based on substantial distortion and misrepresentation from the RWNJ chamber - if I wanted to debate the merits of your position I would have accepted your debate; im here to correct your basic issues with logic and reasoning, to make it clear what I expect your burden to be.
One or two bad stories - isn’t proof of fake news. The same way a plane crash doesn’t make air travel unsafe. It’s relative.
That the coverage is negative or positive doesn’t make the news fake - as you’re assuming non-fake need would be more positive, which may not be true. This is like Arguing that a particularly type of plane is unsafe because it’s had some crashes down to poor maintenance and genuine pilot error.
You could argue that Project Veritas - the organization that repeatedly selectively edits, repeatedly makes out of context videos and tricks people into talking about things in a way that it makes it seem like they’re talking about subtly different things - is a valid source, but it’s not, and you will likely be torn a new one if you mention it.
The same goes for “collusion”, this whole narrative, that the MSM were pushing a collusion narrative, is not accurate, and while it may sound good in your head to make an argument that you feel is open and shut, will require you to demonstrate that such a narrative exists, that it was demonstrably a lie and known to be a lie, and a whole host of other stuff.
This is a formal debate, which operates based on logic, and argument: which is probably more substantial than the Facebook memes and breitbart blog posts where you get your info.
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.
Guess you went with the actual definition of Fake News.
I wish Our_Boat_is_Right good luck.
"Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them""
Oxford has the better definition.
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather then facts and research.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anecdotal
"so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake."
But this is one case so it is an anecdote. Do you agree?
My question about infowars is what do you consider an invasion?
Awaiting next comment.
"Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated."
What do you even mean here?
"They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view."
Fox news are pro-right and pro-Trump which is clearly bias from a conservative point of view.
Am I wrong?
"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."
Facts are irrespective of your feelings. Opinions are of-course determined by what you value the most so basically me admitting to it doesn't change anything.
"No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias."
Any proof?
CNN are biased for views. Your point?
"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. "
My definition no it isn't and from yours requires them to be majority of the time misleading in order for CNN to be considered Fake News.
"It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not"
Tell me why this doesn't matter.
"it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it"
Wait what? Are they reporting the same story over and over again and did not "fix" it?
Do you mean fix as have right wing bias or something else?
If your claim is CNN does not nothing to fix news then your cases should be CNN are bad at redacting. Redacting and Fake News are not the same thing.
"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?"
I like evidence. Have any?
Continues...