The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Fox News is the Worst News in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,668 times Debate No: 24742
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

Title says all!

First round for acceptance, no semantics.
ConservativePolitico

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this debate, I shall focus on Fox news as a whole, and used NGO's (Non-government Organizations) as an unbiased support to my claims. I shall then give examples from several shows varying on Fox to demonstrate that this channel is by far the worst in the US.

1) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a source.

I would like to note that this organization critiques EVERY NEWS SOURCE in America. From CNN, to NBC, to Fox. Unfortunately, log into their website and type in Fox News you are bombarded with reports of "right and early" or other silly puns. They show without a doubt, but very true as I hope to show objectively. Peter Hart reports that: " In the eight-month study period, partisan-affiliated one-on-one interviews were 70 percent Republican166 guests to Democrats 70. [...] Men overwhelmingly dominated one-on-one interviews, at 86 percent: 228 male guests compared to 36 women [...] Guests were also also ethnically homogeneous, with 242 white interview guests (92 percent of the total), 15 African-Americans (seven of whom were Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain), four Arabs or Arab-Americans, and three Latinos." [1] This shows an extreme bias more so than any other news source, and thus makes it one of the worst channels that can be found.

2) The O'Rielly Factor.

If I really have to go into too much detail about this we have problems. Although I still have to explain what's wrong with the show, I would like to give you an example (to your right) to view at this time. Blatant lies being told, on top of the crimes against O'Rielly due to his book being published -resulting in the deaths of 2 people and injured 7 others ALL CHILDREN- and his sexual assault allegations.[2][3] I haven't even started the revisionist historian Bill is either...

3) Diplomatic Relations harmed.

The US's biggest ally is Canada. End of story, no debate here, it is unequivocal, unambiguous, whatever word you choose to say this. One night, upon hearing Canada was requesting a short withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, a show on Fox called 'Red Eye' made the grave mistake of mocking the Canadian military.(Again see video) Needless to say, the Minister of Defense -Peter McKay- asked for a public apology. Although he got one, this also ignores Ann Coulter's parade of 'take over Canada'. I shall get to this next to expand my arguments again in the upcoming rounds.

-Sexual assaults, murders, biased news reporting to favor republicans, and harming international relationships. I stand by the words of this debate. Fox news is the WORST NEWS in the US. Thank you!

Source:
[1] http://www.fair.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'Reilly_(political_commentator)
[3] http://www.knoxnews.com...
Interest reading:
http://web.knoxnews.com...
ConservativePolitico

Con

First of all NGOs do not necessarily mean "unbiased". In fact, many NGOs are probably more bias than government organizations.

news -a report of recent events [3]
report -a usually detailed account [4]

1) Fairness and Accuracy

First of all, while you have pointed out potential sources of bias in Foxnews you have not pointed out anything that is inaccurate. You have to remember that news does not include commentary.

For example:

News: Fred's house burned down
Commentary: Fred was a jerk so he deserved it

Now, while the commentary may be horrendous and bias, the news itself is not. The news is just that: news. It's facts. What Fox does to comment on this news is a different debate entirely. The news itself on Fox is not bias, the commentary might be. Either way, this does not make Fox the WORST news in the US.

There is bias in all news. In fact, most of the news on the air is bias towards the liberal point of view. [1][2] Since other news outlets are bias and occasionally contradictory or inaccurate we cannot declare Fox the worst for demonstrating a trait that all news outlets demonstrate: bias.

2) The O'Rielly Factor

First of all, the video you posted has clear bias. This is not a series of clips pulled straight from Fox but rather a liberal charged video full of commentary. How can you knock Fox for being bias while presenting a bias source? I am going to need a more legitimate source of information regarding these "blatant lies" you have brought up than this bias video.

Second of all, Bill O'Rielly isn't a news reporter. He's a political commentator. He's paid to give his political view on things. Obviously, he's going to be bias, say things you don't agree with and get heated because that's his job. Political commentary does not equal news. That's like trying to say Rush Limbaugh is a news source. He's not. He's a source of both commentary and entertainment. Same with Bill O'Rielly. We can't say Bill adds to Foxnew's poor reputation in news because he's not a news maker, he's a commentator. They are different. You're second source even has right in the name "Bill O'Rielly (political commentator)".

News is a report on recent events which goes over what happened. Foxnews is good at this. They report the news like everyone else.

Here is a news article from Foxnews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com...

You won't find any bias here because well, it's just news. Fox is a fine reporter of news and is in no way the worst in the US.

3) Diplomatic Relations

First, it is impossible to declare who our strongest ally is and if you could it would certainly not be Canada. (I'll debate you on this later if you want.)

Second, President Obama declared that France is our strongest ally. [5] According to our president that statement you made is clearly false.

Now, the Red Eye is in now way a news program. The Red Eye is akin to the Soup or The Daily Show. It is presented as a source of outrageous entertainment. Also, before you start on Ann Coulter, she's not a member of Foxnews but an independent personality.

Anyway, the Red Eye isn't a news program. Go back to the whole news vs. commentary that I already posted. And, you said it yourself, they apologized. The statements of a single news station cannot damage the relationship between two governments. It's illogical.

A. Worse Than Fox

There are plenty of news sources that could be considered worse than Foxnews. Take for example, the National Enquirer. This paper goes for sensationalist writing, in your face headlines and has been sued for lies on multiple multiple occasions. [6][7] I wouldn't trust the Enquirer more than Foxnews. Especially since Fox has a huge source of legitimate news at its disposal (www.foxnews.com) outside of the commentary.

To declare Foxnews the absolute worst news outlet in the country you will have to defend it against things such as the National Enquirer which is obviously a worse source for news than Foxnews.

Recap

* News and commentary are different
* All news outlets have some sort of bias, while this may eliminate Fox as the best source of news it can in no way alone make it the worst source of news
* Fox, like all news stations, hosts a variety of shows from opinion, commentary, raw news, entertainment and interview shows - not all of which qualify as news
* There are worse pieces of news out there

Foxnews is not the worst source of news in the US.


[1] http://www.aim.org...
[2] http://www.fair.org...
[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[6] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

I thank my opponent for bringing up some intriguing points which I will refute.

Rebuttal 1:
"First of all NGOs do not necessarily mean "unbiased". In fact, many NGOs are probably more bias than government organizations."
Forgive me of my arrogance but this is nothing more than a fallacy, I thus extend my argument in regards to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting and their statistics that show Fox is heavily bias. No statistics makes my point still valid as to why FAIR should be disregarded as a source. In fact, he even uses it in one of his arguments for that matter ... look at his sources.

Rebuttal 2:
I would contend that yes News continues into commentary, Fox News has been known to tell lies and bend statistics. Now if you contend that commentary is irrelevant, I think it is, however for the sake of the debate I shall comply with your request and definitions in showing how Fox News is the worst for showing the facts. I shall show this via video (again to the right).

First video is digital re-imaging that was called out to show more people supported the Republicans, if it was not called out, this would have been ignored. Thus Fox news bended the "facts" in this case.

Second video -per my opponents request- is an unbiased view of the interview. Clearly O'Reilly lied about him being a conspiracy theorist, and at the end of the video you can see Bill calling for security. Furthermore, he also claimed Bush had nothing to do with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan .. a blatant lie. But even if this was JUST commentary, it still shows he bended the facts. Furthermore, it makes his point of a 'liberal conspiracy in the press' mute. They told the truth unlike Fox. NOW my opponent will probably maintain that that's just ONE show, and not Fox News.
http://mediamatters.org... (video)
Enter the third video(Link above this sentence .. ^^^ right here man!!!). It shows that according to media matters (Another NGO) That Fox News clearly tried to pull the GOP's research as their own. According to media matters, this is including a typo. Thus again, bending the facts.
Source: http://mediamatters.org...
Fourth video JUST to further the point of blunders Fox has made in the so-called facts of theirs. Enter Kevin Jennings, who was accused by Fox for statutory rape with a 15 year old boy. The boy himself told news stations he was actually 16 at that time, thus he was at the age of consent. Again, the boy also told news stations that nothing actually happened anyways. Another blunder by Fox in their attacks against the Obama administration.
Source: http://mediamatters.org... (video)
and http://washingtonindependent.com...

Rebuttal 3:
My opponent claims the majority of news sources are liberal biasing against conservatives. This is nonsense, in his second source NOTHING shows liberal bias ... in fact it shows conservative bias after MSNBC fired what appears to be a more liberal oriented person for a more "combative conservative one" . Even more so this may be because my opponent concludes this because of the liberal being fired and FAIR accusing them of suppressing free speech, understandable but mistaken. As they were arguing for free speech because the con states: "I'm warning you if you try to damage me any further with lies, be aware of something: That which you stoke shall come to burn you, the ashes of the fireplace will come and burn your own house down. Be very careful, you are living in incendiary times. You can't just throw things at people and walk away thinking that you had a little fun. I warn you; I'm gonna warn you again, if you harm me and I pray that no harm comes to you, but I can't guarantee that it won't" and Savage, who has called on the government to "arrest the leaders of the antiwar movement" in case of war (Boston Globe, 3/3/03), is in no position to pose as a free-speech martyr. "I'll put you in jail!" was his response to critics of his MSNBC hiring, whom he referred to as "stinking rats who hide in the sewers"
Thus a threat of violence, and again as the above quote shows little tolerance of freedom of speech. My opponent is now discredited, he lied to the audience. Even if a liberal tried to pull this crap anyone would have been against him for free speech too!
Source: http://www.fair.org...

Rebuttal 4:
Actually it DID cause international issues between Canada and the US. Obama is stating an opinion, regardless I agree that would be for another debate. If it did not cause issues Minister of Defence Peter McKay would NOT have commented on it for an apology. (See video) AND, the apology was a joke in it's self.
Finally, NO JOKE against the military is funny. What would you say to me if I poked fun at the American Military? Exactly!

Final rebuttal:
Tabloids are not worse news than Fox news. Here is why: Fox clearly shows a political agenda. In politics the people amongst them comment on issues of life and death, who gets what where, when and why, who gets power, etc... Something like the National Enquirer claiming JFK JR moving his wives body as grave robbing is a clear joke.[1] It does not impact the lives of the vast majority of people, nor does anyone take it seriously. THATS entertaining!
Source: http://www.nationalenquirer.com...

To recap:
my opponent fails to address the accusations against O'Reilly, which means Fox's show is responsible -literally- for death (see round 2)
my opponent lied in claiming 'liberal media bias'
international relations WERE harmed as a result of Fox
tabloids are true entertainment and satirical, NOT mocking the military
fox has bended the "facts" 3 times and counting.

The BOP has been shown on my part, now hopefully my opponent won't try to deceive anyone through a play on words. FOX is the worst News in the US. Thank You.

Over to Con.
ConservativePolitico

Con

R1.
I wasn't disputing the fact that your first source about media bias wasn't legit, only that your statement that all NGOs are unbias. I am not disregarding your source but warning you not to blindly trust a source because it is an NGO.

R2.
The first video isn't trying to show more support for Republicans. If you watch the news on a regular basis you should be familiar with the fact that when someone is talking about an issue or event they will play RELEVANT footage behind them. Something that relates but isn't necessarily the exact thing. The footage in question showed various rallies, they never said "Look at this specific rally from this specific place and time." Clearly you can tell the scene changed. This isn't the bending of "facts". If I show you a picture of a cat, is that a fact? A fact is a piece of information. Those background images where just that, background images. On top of that, you took this video which is being commented on by Chris Matthews and John Stewart, both open and noted liberals who hate Fox and the Right.

As for the O'Riely bit. First off, declaring someone a conspiracy theorist is an opinion. There is really no guideline for who is a conspiracy theorist and who isn't. In Bill's opinion (you watch the show to get his opinion) he sounded like a conspiracy theorist. You can't lie about an opinion.

Secondly, Bush Jr. didn't have anything to do with the Mujahadeen. How could he have? We armed them back in the 1970s-1980s. If you're trying to say that Bush armed them you're wrong. He didn't. In forming and creating the Mujahadeen, he didn't have anything to do with it. [1]

Now, on to your next source which is from Media Matters. You do know that Media Matters is an organization dedicated to the destruction of Foxnews? They proclaimed a "War on Fox" and have been out to get rid of it ever since. It's not a credible source when dealing with Foxnews. [2][3]

The next claim about the 15 year old boy story. I want to point out that all news stations make mistakes. Unless you can provide a source claiming Fox deliberately did this and did not apologize or correct their mistake you can count it as a reporting error. Those happen. Show me that Fox did not provide a retraction of some kind after the facts were cleared up - until then we can't claim this is a blatant misuse of facts.

R3.
As for my source not supporting liberal media bias, try this one [4] it shows 50 clear examples of media bias in favor of the left. I did not lie to the audience. How did I lie? Here's another article showing how reporters for the major news outlets are far more liberal than the majority of Americans. This is from a site with .org at the end so you know it has to be good right? [5]

The point of the article was that now MSNBC's line up is completely devoid of anything other than leftist commentary. I'm sorry my source wasn't clear. These new sources should clear up confusion about bias.

Another point in this is that ALL news is bias. So again, you can't claim Fox is the worst based on bias because all news is bias. That is the grander point here.

R4.
Asking for an apology is not an "international issue". Our relations are in the same status they were before this video so how can you say that it damaged anything?

Also, Obama may be stating an opinion but that makes your claim that Canada is our closest ally an opinion as well and therefore the point about them being our "closest ally" is now moot.

Again, the Red Eye is a show designed to shock and entertain. Just because it plays on a station that normally carries news doesn't mean that it is news in and of itself. What they were making is commentary and therefore has no bearing on this debate.

FR.
Your argument here is basically saying "Foxnews carries more important news and is therefore worse". The resolution does not make a distinction between types of news. If the resolution said "Foxnews is the worst source of political news in the US" then the tabloid argument would be dead yes. However, the tabloids are news. They are trying to provide news about celebrities and public figures. It is only your opinion that makes a distinction between the tabloids and Fox and your opinion doesn't matter here. The fact is that tabloids are news and they are worse than Fox.

Also, you can't write tabloids off as merely entertainment because on occation they actually report real news. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story regarding his mistress and love child making them a news source. However, the tabloids lie and provide poor facts and bent perspective far more often than Fox does.

Another thing - we have to remember that Foxnews runs 24/7 on the TV and the internet. They are bound to accidently make a mistake once in a while. If we look at the grand scheme of things, countless articles, countless hours of footage, the stuff my opponent is bringing up is not only minor in nature but very far and few between. Foxnews is not the worst source of news.

Also, my opponent dropped the argument about their website providing unbias, factual and actual news meaning he concedes the point that Foxnews.com is a legit source of unbias news.

There are worse sources of news out there.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.westernjournalism.com...
[5] http://www.mrc.org...



Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thanks opponent and good luck!
R1.
I'll drop this as it is irrelevant, the NGO's thus far as FAIR we can agree is unbiased.

R2.
http://www.youtube.com...
Stop the video at 1:26, you can see digital alterations (signs missing, and flags) thus they fully well knew what they were doing and again bended the facts to give the feeling of 'join us because everyone else is'. To write it off as a simple 'background image' only to accuse Jon Stuart as a noted liberal is nonsense. Fact: something that has really occurred or is actually the case.[1] Those images were thus, NOT the case of the same rally, and the fact is Fox altered them and tried to get away with it.

Again, sure Bill is just a political commentator, however, your right Bush didn't have anything to do with it, I apologize however it was a minor error and irrelevant.

Now with Media Matters, it is still unbiased despite attacking Fox News consistently. First they have done some excellent things outside news as such: "Some news organizations have cited Media Matters reports and credited it for bringing attention to issues including the story of�James Guckert, formerly a reporter for the web-based�Talon News. During�George W. Bush's�administration, Guckert gained White House press access using the pseudonym Jeff Gannon and attended 155 White House press briefings. It was revealed that he had also worked as a prostitute soliciting male clientele on the internet with photos of himself fully naked.�Liberal�op-ed�writers such as�Molly Ivins�and�Paul Krugman�have cited Media Matters or identified it as a helpful source." [2]
Furthermore, this is not including defeating racism within media as well (see within previous source Don Imus controversy, Phony Soldiers controversy, etc...) to hold media responsible for their comments. Thus, commentary is part of the news and should be held accountable for their biasing as well. For my final point: the War of Fox was not after it's destruction, he took it out of context and stretched the truth. "MMfA also said that changing Fox's behavior, not shutting it down, was its goal." [3]

Finally I shall show this as my opponent has asked, that they actually acknowledged the error ANDthey did provide a reaction .. a rather negative one at that as well. http://www.foxnews.com...
The following link claims that Kevin Jennings said it. Again, as I have shown he DID NOT.

Furthermore, Hannity himself continued to argue that his associations alone was enough to have him dismissed. Not for what he thinks, not for what he does, but for what his FRIENDS think. CNN did not make this mistake, thus reaffirming that Fox News is the worst news.

R3.
Yes you did, the article you sited from FAIR you claimed showed liberal bias as a source, it did not in any way shape or form, it was to show freedom of speech should not be suppressed regardless of ideology. Your next source, is flawed again. Stalin controlled media and thus we could not have known much about him at that time. (Just one example) So the blog is untrustworthy, same as DDT arguments, and Vietnam War (if you've read Henry Kissinger: A Trial by Christopher Hitchens you will find the bias was in FAVOR of Kissinger, as he has yet to be convicted of war crimes for Vietnam).
So because it is a blog it should not be used, your next source -though it pains me to admit- is legit. However, this is a conservative bias. As my opponent used FAIR as a source he admits it's validity, thus he admits as FAIR as stated a conservative bias in media.[4] Again, �August 20, 1992�Washington Post, in which Republican party chair�Rich Bond�compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time." [5] And "A report "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage" by David Croteau, from 1998, calls into question the assumption that journalists' views are to the left of center in America. The findings were that journalists were "mostly centrist in their political orientation" and more conservative than the general public on economic issues (with a minority being more progressive than the general public on social issues)." [6] Thus not all news is bias, nor are journalists, conservatives seek to control the media.

FR.
Yet you acknowledged that Red Eye was only satirical, but somehow the tabloids cannot be? As I have shown in the article, a man moving his wife is simply news, but as the national enquirer states as a provocative title "JFK JR GRAVE ROBBER" is nothing more than a joke at best. I know of no one who takes it seriously, nor have you even shown how tabloids are worse. My opponent maintains that occasionally they report real news, sure, in a satirical manner as I have shown! So a politician with an abnormally large nose (satire) is a refutation of fact? We know he does not have a nose like that and thus it is meerly entertainment. Fox covers politics, covers what will happen every day in our lives. Paris Hilton releasing a sex tape does nothing for us (except give us temporary pleasure I suppose), thus Fox is worse.

I did not drop the argument of Fox news.com. You provided a valid defence and I applaud you on it, however, I maintain that the errors are still made, and thus, I indirectly refuted it. However if it makes you happy, here is the Kevin Jenning's lies on the internet: http://mediamatters.org...
and
http://video.foxnews.com... (On the Fox Nation which was an article turned video thus disproving Fox on the Internet as a valid news source)

Again they acknowledged the mistake, but do they apologize? No, they continue the crusade on this poor man by accusing him of statutory Rape.

The argument is over, I hope to show more video's but would be unfair to my opponent and violations of the rules. Thus Fox News is the worst news, and thank you for your time!

Vote Pro!

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Washington Post
[6] ^�http://www.fair.org...
ConservativePolitico

Con

R2. Again, this issue is easily resolved, like I said in my last argument a point which MY OPPONENT DROPPED is that Fox is not saying "This image, yes the one right here on the screen is at this time and this location." That would be the bending of facts then. However, they never say this. They are indeed background images and background images only. Since Fox makes no statement about the background images how can you say the'yre biased or fact bending? Also, how does such an incident make Fox the worst news in the US?

When someone is talking about 9/11 and they show an image of the towers, are they saying that news is happening live? Are they saying the person speaking is involved with the images behind them? No. They're just images. No statement of fact are made about the images being shown and therefore you cannot falliciously accuse them of bending the facts.

"Again, sure Bill is just a political commentator, however, your right Bush didn't have anything to do with it, I apologize however it was a minor error and irrelevant." My opponent admits making this error. He also reaffirms that O'Riely is a COMMENTATOR.

Media matters is bias. David Brock has is a liar journalist who hates Fox. How can the founder and owner of the site hate Fox and pledge to wage "guerilla war" agaisnt them and not be bias? [1] Also, MMfA has been accused of having tie to the president. [1] That's non bias right? He gets tips and pointers about conservaitives from a Democrat. Completely unbias.

"He [David Brock - Founder of Media Matters] wants people, organizations, and companies destroyed." [1]

My opponents next source (About the 15 year old boy case) shows how Fox acknowledged the fact that the boy was 16 and that someone had claimed they were 15 thuse remedying the problem. This source actually helps my case. Fox corrected the misinformation.

Also, you can't prove someone DIDN'T say something, you can only prove what they said so saying "I showed he didn't say that" can't really be shown. You can't prove someone didn't say something.

R3. This next section (again) is about media bias. Since I've repeatedly pointed out that all media is bias and since my opponent is hung up on proving that there is no liberal media bias (when there is) instead of proving that Fox's bias is worse than others all we have here is a frivilous argument about if the media is bias. The media is bias, in both directions. You can't say that Chris Matthew of MSNBC isn't bias just as you can't say Sean Hannity of Fox isn't bias. All news outlets have bias. Fox is no better or no worse than liberal views on MSNBC or CNN. He then falsely and naively says "Conservatives seek to control the media" an unfounded statement. Conservatives are content to keep Foxnews and talk radio outlets and in no way seek to control the media.

There is liberal media bias. [2] [3] [4] Saying otherwise is naive and takes away from this debate.

All news is bias in some way. Fox however is no worse than other news outlets and therefore cannot be cited as the worst news outlet in the US based on the claim of bias.

FR. My opponent tries to claim that tabloids are satire and are therefore not news. This is absurd. The National Enquirer is printed as a fully functioning source of news. They do not claim to be satirical in nature and if you asked them if they were they'd be insulted. In fact, he helps to prove my point. The story he cites "JFK JR GRAVE ROBBER" is a great example of news that is WORSE than Foxnews. This is printed as news. It is sold and displayed as news. It is not satire. The paper prides themselves on being a source of news and as long as they claim to be a source of news we must take them at their word and consider their work news.

My opponent claims I did not show proof that tabloids are worse news which only shows that they did not read my sources from my previous rounds. I posted a list of controversies and lies surrounding the National Enquirer that my opponent has chosen to ignore. It was posted in a previous round.

Tabloids are news and are worse than Foxnews.

Conclusion

* My opponent ceded the fact that foxnews.com is a LEGIT and UNBIAS and ACCURATE source of news
* Tabloids are a worse source of news than Foxnews
* All media and news is bias, Fox being bias cannot be a factor in being the worse source of news because all news is bias
* Foxnews aknowleges and corrects known mistakes

Foxnews is not the worst source of US news.



[1] http://communities.washingtontimes.com...
[2] http://www.aim.org...
[3] http://newsroom.ucla.edu...
[4] http://theweek.com...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Round 2, Con:

Point 1: Con retorts that factual correctness has nothing to do with commentary, and that all commentary is biased. Con then points out other news networks that are far more factually incorrect. An extremely strong rebuttal. Pro must show how Fox News is more factually incorrect then all other news networks, or he has lost. Let's see if he can do that.

Point 2: Con rebuts that Bill O'Reilly is a political commentator, not a reporter. A strong point. The resolution is in regards to news, not commentary. This point is negated.

Point 3: Con rebuts the point about Red Eye being a news program, in addition, Con rebuts the idea that Canada is our strongest enemy.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Round 2, Pro:

Pro advances four points. Point 1: Outlines what could be perceived as racism, but never really fully backs up a claim that Fox News is racist, or, that their "racist" inclinations lead to false claims. Perhaps he'll solidify this later.

Point 2: Pro asserts that O'Reilly has lied blatantly, wrote a book that somehow caused deaths and injuries to children, and has been accused of sexually assault. The assertion of lies was never explained, nor was the book comment, and an allegation clearly does not equate a verdict. If he did sexually assault someone, Pro has failed to offer evidence proving he did. The only attack relevant to the debate, of course, was the accusation of lying. Perhaps Pro will elucidate later.

Point 3: Pro then advances an argument that Fox News has harmed diplomatic relations. While promising, Pro never actually explained how Fox News and relations with Canada, only that the Prime Minister seemed to be offended, and an apology was then offered. Then some event about Ann Coulter is mentioned, which, because of the lack of elucidation, seems almost completely random.

At best, the first round seems to be more of an introduction then an actual argument. Sort of like an essay filled with topic sentences, but without the meat of the argument.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
Just do your best bud

and 16K who are you talking too?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
I think I'll be able to get this in. I'll really try.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
NOOOoooOOOooooOOOO. I'm at college orientation and IDK if I can finish this!!!!!

BASHFIASKDKFJASLDFJADFASDF

I want to finish this debate!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Well...

Most politicians are white

Most people in politics are men, most police officers are men (interviewed in murder stories), most lawyers are men. It makes sense out of a random sampling you wouldst those numbers

I bet other stations have mostly democrats
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Good to hear it. It's always good to have a challenge.
Posted by TheHitchslap 5 years ago
TheHitchslap
I'm really enjoying this debate. It's a little more challenging than most :P
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Yeah, ConPo took the route I would have taken. Tabloids are a worse source of news than Fox is.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
TheHitchslapConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro may have showed that there are issues with Fox News, but Con easily showed that it is definitely not the WORST news in the US.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
TheHitchslapConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Detailed RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
TheHitchslapConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros points are extremely weak. The main point he emphasized was that FOX was biased. This only fulfills his BOP is all other stations are not biased or are less biased. But as con showed all other stations are also biased, and even more so sometimes. That point negated. He also showed FOX does one thing better then all stations: tries to fix its mistakes. A win for con. He also showed tabloids, for example, are the worst news source therefore he wins already based on that.