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
"Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?"
Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated. They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view. They were pro-obama in his days, so clearly they have a leftist bias. I could argue all day how fox news is not "wrong" in their reporting but I can at least have the common sense to admit they are pro-conservative and come from republican viewpoints.
"So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay"
No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias.
"Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump."
When you post or tell multiple fake news stories and have a reputation for doing so, you can't trust what they say. That is called Fake News. It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not, it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it. That is why their viewership dropped dramatically in the direct days after it came out there was no collusion, in some cases up to 50% drop. That tells you viewers aren't trsuting you, is it not?
Yes that was the terrorist attack fake protest. Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them"
so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake.
Infowars was stating what acosta said in the press conference and showing tweets about what happened days later. Infowars was just reporting the fake news, and while, yes, they are bias misrepresented by doo doo head alex jones, I don't think the info they gave was fake or misrepresented in any way. Read nxt comment im running out of space
"one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things."
How high is he do you have a source or picture showing me how high he is. How many producers did CNN have before the guy left?
"CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House."
Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?
"Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?"
So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay.
"Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda."
Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump.
"btw i think ur a cool guy too and respect u we just have different opinions"
It is based on stances but they are important to me and for sure you to.
"Here is Jim Acosta spreading fake news over the border-"
InfoWars? ooof.
"‘Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that,’ Acosta told president"
I would consider this statement do be wrong.
Do you mean he is wrong about this?
"- Not an invasion
- Hundreds of miles away
- Would not jump border wall"
3rd and 2nd would be correct. 1st one depends on what they mean by invasion. They are left out the definition so I'll leave that to you since I do not use InfoWars as my source of information.
"CNN has also been caught staging interviews and protests, such as staging protesters in London after a terrorist attack."
Yeah that was really bad. I think I saw it in a curb your meme. Found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df7jy8s4Nyw
Do you agree this is anecdotal and require a study to be done on CNN to be more than just that?
CNN has also been caught staging interviews and protests, such as staging protesters in London after a terrorist attack.
Here is Jim Acosta spreading fake news over the border-
https://www.infowars.com/proof-cnns-acosta-is-fake-news-caravan-is-an-invasion/
It doesn't matter if the majority of it is fake news or not, it matters if they are spreading false or misleading information at all, which is what CNN has done countless times.
btw i think ur a cool guy too and respect u we just have different opinions
So first u said "gimme an instance where people admitted it was fake news"
so i gave you two examples, one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things. So now u r backtracking and want every single person saying it is fake news? Surely since they are pushing an anti-trump agenda they wouldn't tell you it is fake news because that would ruin their agenda.
According to a harvard study, CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House. Shorestein’s study showed that an average of 80% of broadcast and print media published negative stories about Trump, as compared to 40% negative about former President Barack Obama. Of all the news outlets, CNN was the most egregious abuser of the negative Trump stories.
Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?
Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda. And because "objective journalism" represents their news network, that is definitely fake news and fake news in the majority of stories CNN airs or publishes because they are not being unbiased.
"I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-"
Your definition is fake news is misleading. One producers testimony is not enough to say as a whole CNN is fake news. Reason is I can find someone who says CNN is the opposite are they right? Provide actual proof not testimony which I am sure Christians do like. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts when you consider testimony as a fact that CNN is fake news.
"I think that would qualify for ur def. then."
Intentionally? I am sorry did he have a part to play in every single CNN news article? No I am sure it wasn't even majority of the time so even by my definition you don't have a point.
"For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real"
Lol. Says evidence and then right afterwards starts speaking about personal experience. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
"I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however."
Intelligence design? Is God not a sign of intelligence. What created God? The intelligence design argument has been debunked several times and if you have personal experience and intelligence design as your best arguments for God your logic is faulty.
"Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about."
They are incapable to provide evidence of God's existence but still follow it.
"I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real."
Thank you for telling me you are not open minded. Who would have thought a Christian conservative was? No your delusion that you perceive as God is not real.
I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-
- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
U said the def of fake news was 'intentonally misleading...."
I think that would qualify for ur def. then.
For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real and I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however.
Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about. I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real.
ye ig tbh i just dont feel like it tho
The objective of debating isn't really to change the opponents mind, of course that could be one outcome. The point is to convince the readers that you've made a better argument towards a particular viewpoint. If you want to do the first, random autistic forum screeching suffices.
In this regard, it shouldn't matter if you think I'm "set in my leftism".
I lied lets not agree to disagree. Your comments have triggered me.
"bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-"
Yes I have but it does not get through to you that even by your definition CNN is not "fake news". What part of it don't you understand?
"no evidence for atheism."
You are basically saying people who believe in unicorns are justified because I can't disprove unicorns don't exist.
I can logically deduce God not existing but I think it might be too much for you. What do you say? Want a conservation about the non-existence of God since you did say you are "open minded"?
"I also have had many constructive debates and have changed multiple people's minds on topics like Gun control and kneeling for the anthem."
I don't consider this open minded. I am guessing you now don't consider kneeling a bad thing or if the reverse God help you. I seriously don't know what you changed your mind on gun control due to how many discussions can be had about that.
"I think the key to having the most open-mind is being respectful."
I personally don't think you are but I may be wrong.
"Obviously omar and I have not been so respectful, lol, so ig it would be a debate for others to view and not change any of our minds."
I am sure you are a cool dude in real life and if I was a Christian right winger I am sure I would like you but as it stands I don't think it is worth each others time when we can't even agree on basic things like why CNN is not misleading for posting 3 false news. You are leaving out the countless other posts which outweigh the 3 you cherry-picked.
This conservation is not going anywhere and I have done this so many times on DDO where a debate comment section almost had 500 (487) comments. Lets agree to disagree until I want to call you out again which I am prone to doing when I want to waste my time even more.
bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
"An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing."
no evidence for atheism.
I would be fine to have a debate with omar, but I am busy this week and will be out of town next week.
I am not a big fan of dust from seeing his DDO debates, and don't think it would be very constructive as he seems close minded and set in his leftism.
I also have had many constructive debates and have changed multiple people's minds on topics like Gun control and kneeling for the anthem.
People have also changed my mind, for example statistics about gun control. I think the key to having the most open-mind is being respectful.
Obviously omar and I have not been so respectful, lol, so ig it would be a debate for others to view and not change any of our minds.
"Wow, I am amused you still haven't responded."
Even by your definition of fake news you still have not shown your burden of proof. You need a lot more examples anecdotal andy.
"You have been avoiding this the whole time."
1 person who isn't in public relations is a representative of an entire news network? Oh wow I learn something new every day.
"Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake?"
Majority of them. Here I can make it easier. Find a representative of CNN someone from public relations or the owner stating their biases and intentionally misleading the public. Really thought the great DDO debater would at least know how to think outside the box.
"I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism."
No bait since it is facts and you can't deny the fact that conservatives are more Religious than liberals. Atheism is a non-belief so in a sense still a belief but a negative one. An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing.
"Those last two can't prove science made the world."
What? Now you don't even know what science is. Science observes the natural world. I find the world beyond the Big Bang a bit of a stretch for a science to observe but I might be wrong. They can always theorise but can't really say what is. Maybe science can one day.
Science doesn't make anything. It is a field which observes the natural world. Not made the entire world. You are definitely Religious. Just checked you are.
"The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual."
oof. The Big Bang is considered a theory which best explains how the universe started. God can and does not explain anything due to the lack of evidence.
Ok so you didn't respond to my counterpoints. Your confusing me with what most of what you said. Your explanation seems to be very complicated and detailed, so plz explain the third paragraph as if i were a 5 year old.
It's not nonsensical points about media bias, that is one of the points this debate is centered around. Being a leftist like you, you believe CNN is factual and I have to prove that the 90% negative coverage isn't factual.....but that's not the point. The point is that they do have a bias, like most other organizations. And the point I am trying to make is that they underline "the most trusted name in news" and claim they are neutral journalists, when in fact they clearly are not. They have a leftist agenda and would praise obama but haters on trump, and you seem to say that is justifiable because it is backed up with facts. This is not the case though...they spin facts to work towards their agenda.
Fox News has bias night news with a Conservative perspective, and I would argue they are factual, but arguing who is and isn't is a very objective and opinionated topic.
The reason I don't have the same critique for CNN as i do for Fox or MSNBC is because they don't claim to be objective journalists, but CNN does.
I know from my DDO past and current days most people who disagree argue in bad faith, logically inconsistent, fallacious and just now don't even know the basics of having a debate.
"it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively."
I love debating but from having 75 debates on DDO I have found very little constructive. I have definitely changed my mind on a lot of things but it wasn't because of my opponents instead of reading other debates. Which is why I took a drastic change from conservatism to liberal or progressive.
Boat and Omar, any chance you two can have a debate? With a potential day until con responds, and the amount of energy you two have, it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively.
Also Boat, you may want to have a debate with Dust. He made a fantastic point.
Wow, I am amused you still haven't responded.
""Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You have been avoiding this the whole time.
"One person to compared to how many posts CNN produces."
Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake? Van Jones is the most far-left person on CNN, arguably. He hates Trump. For him to say that was big.
"It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right is the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative."
I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism. Those last two can't prove science made the world. Nothing can be proven. The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual.
You’re confusing me pointing out the specific errors in your understanding about critical thinking, and your seeming lack of understanding about what proof means, and the differences between evidence and anecdotal evidence with a willingness to engage in nonsensical points about media bias.
I am going to be a voter on this debate - as I have been on 180+ other debates, and I am trying to help you and do you a favor by being explicit about what I view your default burden is before the debate really kicks off.
The biggest two related errors made by novice debaters , and quite frankly - a lot of the right wingers on this site, is the difference between proof and anecdote; and the assertion of narrative. Both are somewhat a form of confirmation bias - the first is the approach that one aspect of one occurrence is bad, and so from this you draw a broad and overreaching conclusion that is simply not supported by the individual droplets of data. The second, is that you operate on a baseline of your narrative being fact, and the evidence you produce being in line with that narrative. That is far different from walking through the evidence to demonstrate the narrative is correct.
You’re making both of them right here, and it undermines your position before you even start.
"I haven't debated in 5 months."
So this is a basic thing and what does it say in your bio?
"Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger""
One person compared to how many posts CNN produces.
"That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts."
Here we go. Something typical of conservatives. Denial. You at least understood you required a definition but you don't understand how awful your argument is. 3 false reports doesn't make CNN as a whole "Fake News" even if you are going by it only being misleading.
"Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?"
It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right isn't the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative.
"If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?"
I haven't debated in 5 months.
"From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that."
I did in my orginal statement that u did not respond too.--- "Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger"
"Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts."
I provided substance and facts that I just repeated that you never responded to. You responded to my claims by saying "Well u r biased and other commenters are doing it for me.." which they didn't respond to my claims before u commented that. That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts.
Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?
"I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time."
If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?
"You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts."
From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that.
"You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance."
Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts.
I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time.
You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts. You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
No, it's to expose the unfair and bias/selective reporting that happens at CNN, with many fake stories that prove it, which is what this debate will develop around, so I don't want to get too much more into it in comments, I will just let the debate happen to prove my case.
Coming from a person who doesn't even know you require a definition before you argue something.
Your argument in Round 1 I feel like CNN is fake news because of 3 incidences.
Change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
You can't even provide a definition and expect to provide facts when you didn't even tell anyone what you mean by fake news.
ran out of space.
You also did not address Van Jones, a far leftist frequently on CNN, saying collusion was "just a big nothingburger"
"For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad."
They are not reporting anything pro trump, where as when obama was president, they praised him on everything. All of saying is they clearly have a liberal bias, but they report to be objective journalists, which is not the case.
"For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation."
Because they claim to be unbiased, and have very few guests on that have a different viewpoint from liberals. Fox News always have anti-trump and liberal guests on, because they actually show the other side a lot, unlike "unbiased" CNN.
"In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable."
The Russia Collusion narrative. The days directly after it came out there was no collusion, CNN viewership went way down, in some cases up to 50%. Your claim leads me into the next thing you said which is my proof.
"You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception."
Can u give examples or further proof plz?
ok i get it u don't wanna respond to my points and instead go back to feelings, not facts.
Well then most factual statements on Fox News are factual too. What's your point? That is completely opinionated.
"RM lost a debate..."
FAKE NEWS!
<.< Sorry, I had a Trump moment.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
oof can't wait for feelings don't care about your facts to respond.
“How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump?”
For this to be evidence of “fake news”, you need to show that the percentage of negative coverage is unfair or unreasonable. It’s not fake news if, for example, 90% of things trump does is bad.
“Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/“
For this to be evidence of fake news, you have to explain why it is wholly unreasonable for a network to have only 1-20 guests being Pro Trump - and why having this few pro trump guests indicates dishonesty, rather than a non dishonest or mundane explanation.
“Or the whole russia thing was a lie?”
In this case - you have to define what “this whole Russia thing” means - and prove that not only “ it was a lie” but that CNN propagated this “lie” intentionally. Just staying that the AG summarized an investigation that said he wasn’t guilty of conspiracy doesn’t invalidate, say, a general media narrative that where a picture of lies, odd behaviour, and incriminating circumstances were propagated - if those examples were reasonable.
“ Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.”
You could go with the Project Veritas link if you chose - you’d probably get ripped apart, as PV have a long history of using selective editing and out of context remarks to portray a given narrative of choice - with the videos you’ve stated being no exception.
The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news.
No point in me stating how you are wrong when Ragnar and Ramshutu and Death23 and dustryder done it for me.
You are clearly biased and you do not even know how to represent your point correctly due to it.
RationalMadman has got this if he isn't biased and if he is a good debater.
Why on earth would you use fake news to mean misleading news when you could just use misleading news to mean misleading news and fake news to mean fake news.
Just because your president is a dullard with language doesn't mean you need to fall off the cliff with him
Most of the factual assertions on CNN are true, and even when they're not true then there's usually some basis for having made those statements. Bias =/= fake. Individual incidents of false reporting aren't sufficient to show that CNN is fake news, especially if those incidents are the exception rather than the rule.
"I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a 'fake news network'"
Welcome to English, where words have meaning. I suggest reading the resolution you set out to prove.
"these things are not measurable nor quantifiable."
Anyone skilled at math would disagree. Heck your previous link assigns percentages.
"The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims"
Given that you haven't met your basic burden yet for con to need to do much of anything, you may want study up on BoP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
That said... Seriously, good luck on this debate. You're up against someone who is very skilled at critical thinking.
"So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?"
1. I agree that the instigator must meet BoP...
2. I'm good with your definition, or any other. It's up to the debaters to pick one inside the rounds.
3. If one fails to be picked, then sure, I've got nothing against defaulting to yours. Deliberate Deception is indeed a good standard.
How bout the fact coverage on CNN is over 90% negative on Trump? Or that they have over less than 5% of guests on that were pro-trump? https://stonecoldtruth.com/the-numbers-dont-lie-proof-of-fake-news-confirmed/
Or the whole russia thing was a lie? Even CNN's very own producer said trump was right to say it was a witchhunt because there is "no real proof." He also said that the whole thing was "bulls**t" and they are doing the whole russia thing for ratings. Watch this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=471&v=jdP8TiKY8dE
That sounds like fake news to me, and the producer was basically admitting it was fake news.
Previously you said " For it to be Fake News you need to find a clip of [Someone] knowing it was false information but still reported on it."
Well, i guess i have done so and proved u wrong.
Van Jones, a far-leftist, was also caught on tape saying russia was "just a big nothingburger"
To your point, before, yes, facts don't care about your feelings.
Unless you provide a substantial and compelling reason otherwise, you will have to show that CNN, as a media organization presents and provides content that is deliberately deceitful and misleading, in a way that rises significantly above the level of the average media organization.
Imo. Showing some bias, or where they got some facts wrong is not sufficient, unless you can show these instances are substantial worse than non fake news examples.
Like I said, your the only one who said i need "50% or more" to win. I never said that, and that isn't the criteria.
Of course I could point out more fake news, those 3 were just some popular examples. I'm not gonna go back 5 years and look at every single show and decide that 50% is fake news. Use common sense.
"Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading"
You misunderstood my point. I could care less about all this "what left say is true and not misleading" but "right news is misleading" that is completely objective and opinionated. I'm saying they say they are unbiased journalists, which is misleading to viewers because they have a leftist agenda but pretend everything they say is true and completely objective.
" I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news."
Showed 4 examples in my opening argument.
"That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes."
Um ok CNN just made "mistakes?" I don't think so. They knew they were putting out and alleging all these things without having all the facts and context. So them ruining covington kid's reputation, calling him "racist" and "mocking of native americans" and calling him all these terrible things was just a "mistake?" It sounds like they were spreading lies and so desperately wanting to destroy trump and his supporters, especially when CNN insists on "fact-checking" all the time. Of course they didn't cover a conservative getting assaulted by another person on the UC Berkely campus, oh no, because that would ruin there agenda. Doesn't sound like objective journalism to me.
"You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are."
Other way around chief, u brainwashed libtards cant even see your own bias.
"I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%"."
Guess you have already lost. Be prepared to do so. If the number is less than 50% Rational Madman just needs to show a number of 51% or higher. That is easy when you look at your Round 1. You have pointed out 3 news articles when I am sure CNN post more than 3 everyday. I doubt RationalMadman even needs to go past a week to debunk your claim. Guess you really like to lose I guess.
"I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased."
Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading. I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news. Remember facts don't care about your feelings. Yet another example from a conservative that does not uphold that who thinks 3 incidences compared to the amount of CNN posts somehow makes them more fake news than not. At best you can say majority of the time CNN post correct news whereas sometimes like 3 incidences they are not accurate. That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes. You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are. Your profile should be feelings don't care about your facts when you make such a bogus claim that "CNN is fake news"
misleading viewers imo is fake news. Ok? That's my definition. I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%". I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased.
So your argument is on fact rather then right or wrong?
Are you going to with what Ragnar said where you are going to state they mislead more than they accurately represent the news?
Also quit complaining if other people are taking it seriously. If you are not telling taking it seriously don't expect others to not also. If you are also not basing it on what Ragnar said then all the Contender has to do is prove that more than 50% CNN are accurately representing the facts to have a better argument than you.
It doesn't have to be intentional. Misleading viewers on facts without having full context or basing news off allegations are some. Like the Covington kid, they took a 2 min. clip out of a 2 hour video and made a kids reputation look very bad calling him"racist" without knowing or researching context.
"misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information."
Is the misleading intentional and if you are so can you prove it?
"There is no one set definition, it is a pretty broad term but i am sorta combining those two definitions. Dont overcomplicate it."
Why did you use it for? To own the "libtards"? If you wanted a serious discussion I think you would have titled the debate CNN is more misleading than accurate.
misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information.
There is no one set definition, it is a pretty broad term but i am sorta combining those two definitions. Dont overcomplicate it.
What is your definition then?
There is no one set definition of fake news. It has different meanings. What I am talking about is misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information.
omar, using wiki as a definition website is not a good place to define. When hosts or cooper spread fake news, they're not gonna admit that it is false or misleading, because they want viewers to believe it.
Ragnar, crap like that of "50% or more" just to prove a point of "BOP" is what I dislike about these tryhard websites. I'm trying to have a casual debate and you tryhards over complicate it a lot. The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims. Then I provide rebuttals to those. There's no set "BOP" on 1 person. So don't vote on crap like 50% or more fake news, I am saying in general they spread false information and I gave specific examples. I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a "fake news network" because these things are not measurable nor quantifiable.
So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?