The Instigator
CRBarrow
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Fox News is the most bias new network

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,682 times Debate No: 18827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (10)

 

CRBarrow

Pro

Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "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."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look.

"Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment."--Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, 3/23/01)

Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.

all credited to www.fair.org//index.php?page=1067
DanT

Con

I accept the debate. FOX news is biased, but so are most other netwroks. I will prove thar FOX news is not the "most biased" network.
Debate Round No. 1
CRBarrow

Pro

IfFox News Channelis the bastion of balance that it claims to be, then its pool of guests should reflect a full spectrum of debate, from left to right, and neither major party should dominate over the other.

To testFox's guest list, FAIR studied 19 weeks ofSpecial Report with Brit Hume(1/1/01-5/11/01), whichFoxcalls its signature political news show looking specifically at the show's daily one-on-one newsmaker interviews conducted by the show's anchor. The interview segment is a central part of the newscast; Hume often uses his high-profile guests' comments as subject matter for the show's wrap-up panel discussion.

FAIR classified each guest by both political ideology and party affiliation. Only two ideological categories were used: conservative and non-conservative. Guests affiliated with openly conservative think tanks, magazines or advocacy groups, or who promote openly conservative views, were labeled as such. All other guests were grouped together in the non-conservative category, including centrists, liberals and progressives; non-political guests (e.g., Cheney's heart doctor); and "objective" journalists who do not avow any ideology. Republicans were not automatically counted as conservatives: Moderate Republicans like Christopher Shays, Christine Todd Whitman and David Gergen, for example, were classified as non-conservatives.

Sixty-one percent of guests were current or former Democratic or Republican government officials, political candidates, staffers or advisors. These guests were classified as either Democrats or Republicans. All others -- including conservatives with no official party connection, such as Jerry Falwell or David Horowitz -- were classified as non-partisan for the purposes of the study, along with bipartisan officials such as career diplomats.

The numbers show an overwhelming slant onFoxtowards both Republicans and conservatives. Of the 56 partisan guests onSpecial Reportbetween January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

OnSpecial Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. While FAIR did not break down the non-conservative guests by ideology, there were few avowed liberals or progressives among the small non-conservative minority; instead, there was a heavy emphasis on centrist and center-right pundits (David Gergen, Norman Ornstein, Lou Dobbs) and politicians (Sen. John Breaux, Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Christopher Shays).

As a comparison, FAIR also studied the one-on-one newsmaker interviews onCNN'sWolf Blitzer Reportsover the same time period, and found a modest but significant tilt towards Republicans, and a disproportionate minority of guests who were conservatives--but in both cases, there was far more balance than was found onSpecial Report.

Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.

Only eight ofSpecial Report's 92 guests during the study period were women, and only six were people of color -- making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white.Wolf Blitzer Reportswas hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.

Special Report's guests who were women or people of color were strikingly homogenous in ideology. Seven of the show's eight female guests were either conservative or Republican, although women in general tend to be less conservative and more Democratic than men. Although African-Americans and Latinos show an even more pronounced progressive tilt, five of six people of color appearing on the show were either conservative or Republican; the sixth was an Iraqi opposition leader championed by congressional Republicans. (OnWolf Blitzer Reports, nine of 15 female guests were conservative or Republican; four out of five of the show's American guests who were people of color were non-conservative.)

The fact that the study included the beginning of a new Republican administration may excuse a slight tilt toward Republican guests. But at a time when the Senate had a 50/50 split and the White House was won with less than a plurality of the popular vote,Special Report's 50 Republicans to 6 Democrats reflects not news judgment, but partisan allegiance.

All credited to Steve Randall from Fair.org
DanT

Con

Let me make this perfectly clear, the FOX News Channel is not FOX News. FOX News is the news programs on FOX, and the FOX News channel. Claiming the FOX News Channel is purely a News Channel, is like claiming MTV is purely a Music Channel.

Glenn Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly are all opinion shows, and have all stated countless times on the air that they are “not a news program, and never claimed to be a news program”.

If you lump opinion shows in with News, you might as well also lump in Family Guy, and the Simpsons.

News Programs on FOX are;

  1. Fox News Live
  2. Fox News Sunday

News Programs on the FOX News Channel are;

American’s Newsroom

  1. Happening Now
  2. Studio B
  3. Fox Report

Opinion Programs on the FOX News Channel are;

  1. Fox and Friends
  2. Your World with Neil Cavuto
  3. The Five
  4. The O’Reilly Factor
  5. Hannity
  6. On the Record
  7. Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
  8. Glenn Beck

News and Opinion Programs on the FOX News Channel are;

  1. America Live with Megyn Kelly
  2. Special Report with Bret Baier

Opinion shows are intended to give their biased opinion; that is why the viewers tune in. To count Opinion Programs as part of the bias would be an intentional inflation of the results.

I looked at Pro’s sources and they only mention the opinion shows by name, not the actual News programs. This proves that his sources are themselves biased, inflated and unreliable.

Now with all due respect to my opponent, quoting Rich Bond, is like quoting Joe Biden. Sure it's a funny foot and mouth quote, but the chances of it reflecting reality is slim to none. Rich Bond is one of the 3% of conservatives who think the media has a conservative bias; most likely because he only listens to talk radio, or opinion shows.

My opponent claims there is no Liberal Bias, but most Americans agree there is a Media Bias, and most that see a Bias, see a Liberal Bias.

According to Gallup Polls, "The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year. The percentage of Americans who say the media are "just about right" edged up to 36% this year but remains in the range Gallup has found historically."









With that said, is FOX News the most Biased News Network?

I think not! They are merely the most Right Wing Media Network.

MSNBC is probably one of the most Left Wing Media Networks, and they are by far more biased than FOX News.

I went to MSNBC.com and clicked US

The 1st 5 stories were;

  1. Occupy Wall Street shows muscle, raises $300K (occupying wall st.)
  2. 2 teen girls die after being hit by train in Utah (Tragic Death)
  3. Active duty gays say coming out has been non-event (Don’t ask don’t tell)
  4. Man in wheelchair shot to death by Phoenix police (Police brutality)
  5. Feeding the masses, fueling a movement (occupying wall st.)

That is a 4/5 Left Wing bias, and a 0/5 Right Wing bias.

Now I went to FOXNews.com and clicked US

The 1st 5 stories were;

  1. Three Die in Small Plane Crash in California (Tragic Death)
  2. Student Says School Held Him Back Because of Religion (Religion)
  3. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy (Civil Rights)
  4. Peer-To-Peer Lending Lets Small Business Owners Avoid Banks (Free Market)
  5. The Week Ahead: 7/17 (Obama)

That is a 2/5 maybe 3/5 Right Wing bias, and 0/5 left wing bias, possibly 1/5 Left wing bias.

I say a possible 1/5 Left Wing bias because in the Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Legacy highlights, they was mostly praising Obama, and the speech he made; oddly enough. Thos hosts also were advocated affirmative action in the highlights.

The the possible extra Right wing bias is due to the small business Peer-To-Peer Lending segment.

So I would say MSNBC is by far, more bias than FOX News.

Now here are also some quotes straight from hosts on MSNBC.

"My first night here ion MSNBC, was the President's state of the union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there was actually people, that were in the news room, that were booing the president; basically from the beginning to the end."

~ MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, 2007

"The president and I are finally on the same page, go vote! And when you do keep him in mind would ya..."

~ Kent Jones, on MSNBC's the Rachel Maddow Show, 2008

“The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”

~ Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, September 23, 2009.

“Reagan [at the 1984 D-Day commemoration] was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something.' I mean, in a way, Obama's standing above the country, above — above the world. He's sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together.”

~ Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to host Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, June 5, 2009.

On the September 7 Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, followed up a clip of Obama by saying:

"I get the same thrill up my leg, all over me, every time I hear those words. I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, that’s me. He's talking about my country and nobody does it better."

“‘What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound and maybe to a lesser extent Ruby Ridge?’ Well, obviously, the answer is talk radio, specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio....Limbaugh claimed others would have blood on their hands in the event of future right wing terrorism. Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now, and you have had it for 15 years.”

~ MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19, 2010 Countdown

Debate Round No. 2
CRBarrow

Pro

My Opponent says he went to Foxnews.com and clicked U.S. why? This is a political debate, He should have clicked politics. You know what I found on the first four stories (they didn't have 5 so I had to go with 4).

The 1st 4 stories were:
1. Reid Offers Teachers' Salaries as First Vote on Obama's Divvied-Up Jobs Bill
2. Obama's First 1,000 Days Marked By Federal Spending Spree, More Unemployment
3. Cain Squeaks Ahead of Obama in New General Election Poll
4. Sen. Thune: We Need to Repeal Obamacare

That is 4/4 Right winged stories for Fox News.

See what he doesn't understand when I say Fox News Channel I mean The Fox News, any source on Fox that brings you the news. Not Family Guy, Not The Simpsons.

I went to MSNBC.com and These are the first 4 stories I saw on politics.

The 1st 4 stories were:
1. Obama getting heat from the Press
2. Democrats plan first vote on jobs bill
3. Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.
4. Perry slashed environment enforcement in Texas

See that's 2/4 left wing stories from MSNBC.com My opponet wants you to think that MSNBC is more biased than FOX by using other sources than politics

As of November 2, 2009 from davehitt.com
FOX News was voted 14% Liberal 47% Conservative 24% Neither
MSNBC was voted 36% Liberal 11% Conservative 27% Neither

I'm not saying MSNBC isn't bias but it isn't the most bias.

Here is an Article I drew from Slate.com stating that Fox News admits bias

"Fox News Admits Bias!
Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.
By Timothy Noah|Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 12:40 PM ET
Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a drill. Repeat: This is not a drill. Assume battle stations! Fire in the hole! A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga!
The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.
Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)
I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to compare Norvell's op-ed to the Vatican's belated admission, after 359 years, that Galileo had it right when he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now how about a prime time seppuku by Fox News chief Roger Ailes? Failing that, maybe ABC News could lend Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer for Ailes' weepy confession. Hey, there, funny face, where's the broken-winged sparrow underneath that tough-guy exterior? Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago—and everything to gain in terms of heightened visibility. Say it with me, Roger: "Eppur si muove!" Doesn't that feel good?"

I've enjoyed this debate with my opponent
Conclusion
DanT

Con

Fox News has been known to actually Defend Obama, MSNBC has never been known to Defend Bush.

My opponent claims this is a debate about politics...... It's not, it's a debate about news bias....

My opponent also claims MSNBC only has 2/4 bias in their political headlines, this is wrong

My opponent obviously can't see the bias in MSNBC's headlines, so I will include the opening to each article, with the headlines, and point out the bias;

1. Obama getting heat from the Press
"Obama has been the victim of "unrelentingly negative" coverage in the media"

2. Democrats plan first vote on jobs bill
"Senate Democrats introduced a $35 billion bill intended to help cash-strapped states prevent layoffs of teachers and first responders on Monday......"

3. Life-at-fertilization initiative has hope in Miss.
"A national effort to put abortion bans into state constitutions is looking for its first victory next month in Mississippi, where voters are being asked to approve an amendment declaring that life begins when a human egg is fertilized. Supporters hope the so-called personhood initiative will succeed in a Bible Belt state that already has some of the nation's toughest abortion regulations and only a single clinic where the procedures are performed."

4. Perry slashed environment enforcement in Texas
"Gov. Rick Perry likes to say the best way to promote economic growth is to reduce regulation. When it comes to the environment, Perry has made Texas one of the most industry-friendly states in the nation."


So that's really a 100% Left Wing bias.

So now let's look at the Fox News opening headlines;

1. Reid Offers Teachers' Salaries as First Vote on Obama's Divvied-Up Jobs Bill

"Senate Democrats will try to move a component of President Obama's $447 billion bill -- $35 billion in aid to state and local governments to rehire or retain teachers and first responders -- as early as this week, disappointing Republicans who say another piece of the apple would've had a better chance for success."

2. Obama's First 1,000 Days Marked By Federal Spending Spree, More Unemployment

"President Obama hit his 1,000-day mark Monday, and with new data showing hikes in poverty, foreclosures, joblessness and debt, the president has a little over a year to convince Americans that he is turning the country in the right direction."

3. Cain Squeaks Ahead of Obama in New General Election Poll

"Businessman Herman Cain is leading President Obama in a new head-to-head poll, with seniors and independents taking a particular liking to his unconventional candidacy. "


4. Sen. Thune: We Need to Repeal Obamacare

Had to search for this one, since it wasn't on the page like Pro said it was; turns out it was a video, so I can't copy the text, but it was a opinion show as expected, "Your World with Neil Cavuto" is an opinion program, not a news program.

I will ask my opponent to please give an exact links to his sources instead of these vague links.
Again I went to his listed source, davehitt.com, and it was nothing more than, "a Portal for all of Dave's Online Projects and Web Sites", and the portal had links to various opinion blogs and podcasts - not the most reliable sources - these blogs had topics such as "Brian on things atheists didn't do", and "Police State News".





FOX News Is biased, no one will dispute that fact... However they are not the Most biased, they are simply the most Right wing, in a mostly Left wing Media.


If you compare MSNBC and FOX News during the 2008 Presidential Elections who would see that MSNBC was far more bias than FOX News.

Source: http://www.verumserum.com...

According to eM&P's article "Bias on MSNBC & Fox News - An Empirical Analysis of the Content Found on Cable News"

This compared 2 shows from MSNBC and 2 shows from Fox News;

MSNBC

  1. The Rachel Maddow Show (9pm)
  2. Hardball with Chris Matthews (5pm & 7pm)

FOX News

  1. The O’Reilly Factor (8pm)
  2. Hannity (9pm)

Found here: http://www.emandp.com...

The study was broken up into 3 groups; tone, objectivity, and overall Political bias.

Tone

The analysis shows that both networks present overwhelmingly negative coverage of the news and politics.

Objectivity

Subjectivity is defined as any opinionated commentary as compared to objective, fact-based statements. Here, we see both networks relying heavily on subjective content in their newscasts.

Political Bias

The charts below show that both networks contain a great deal of partisan bias in their reporting. In keeping with popular perceptions, MSNBC reports much more positively on the Democratic Party and Fox News reports more positively on the Republican Party. Interestingly, in both cases we see the cable networks spending more time denigrating the opposition party than praising the party they tend to support.

MSNBC:

Fox News:














Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
*?

Meant to put a question mark, even though the question is rhetorical
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Hey I grew up in Sarasota. What are the odds.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Pie charts rule
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
I didn't copy and paste anything.

That is my own words.
Posted by CRBarrow 5 years ago
CRBarrow
Copy and Paste that to?
In your own words describe that
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Libertarianism is Classic Liberalism, which is much different from Modern Social Liberalism.

Classic Liberalism favors Individual Liberty, and Free Market Economics; they believe the role of Government is to protect the Life, Liberty, and property of the people, and nothing more.

Social Liberals combine Classic Liberalism and Progressivism, and they favor Keynessian Economics, and the welfare state, but also favor individual liberties on sociocultural issues.

Modern Conservatives are something known as Liberal Conservatives; They combone classic Liberalism and traditional conservatism.

Liberal Conservatives favor Keynesian Economics, and favor traditional, cultural, and moral standards, however they also favor individual liberties on sociopolitical issues.

Classic liberals favor individual liberties on socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and sociocultural issues; this is what sets libertarians apart from Liberal Conservatives and Social Liberals.
Posted by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
You've shown no proof, absolutely none. You gave nme something I didnt ask for. And he's a libertarian.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Oh my god, were those pie charts? I've got to get in on this.
Posted by CRBarrow 5 years ago
CRBarrow
DanT, aren't you a liberal?
A liberal is a democrat.... and besides you pretty much just copied and pasted everything on that, and that was my first debat
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
I'm not going to waste my time, you obviously have your mind set, and no matter how much proof is shown to you, it won't change your opinion.
No wonder the Donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheRomanticist 5 years ago
TheRomanticist
CRBarrowDanTTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Half of the time, Con was defending the opinion shows he claimed weren't part of Fox News. Some of the clips showed a clear bias that was not not necessarily direct. Despite this, when Con was debating the actual news, his arguments were better supported.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
CRBarrowDanTTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to shift the debate to "Fox News is the most bias news network when considering bias" in the later rounds... but political bias was never a part of the resolution, just the general bias of the network. This gives Con arguments. His use of graphs and videos was superb, so I gave him SG as well. Finally, he had an abundance of sources.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
CRBarrowDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was far more better than Pro's. Pro failed at proving why Fox News is more biased than other networks.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
CRBarrowDanTTied
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: Very good debate. I feel Pro failed on his BOP as he was unable to show Fox News is more biased than any other news outlet. CON did an excellent job refuting those assertions by using the comparisons. In addition, Con's debate structure, and use of data and graphs was phenomenally well done.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
CRBarrowDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering vote bomb
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
CRBarrowDanTTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I always thought that Fox was biased, but i never thought if it was the MOST biased, So i found this debate very interesting. I thought it got out of hand when both started to pick one or two random samples of headlines and try to reinforce their arguments with those but at the end the Con really showed how MSNBC is more liberal than Fox was conservative. Something i never knew even though I always get my news from MSNBC. Sources though went to Con because the graphs were better than videos
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
CRBarrowDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro arguement was overall better and plus Fox hates Ron Paul who is the only ood person running.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
CRBarrowDanTTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win
Vote Placed by Spaztoid 5 years ago
Spaztoid
CRBarrowDanTTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the arguments presented we both fair and reasonable, however DanT relied upon statistics to make his point, and that simply doesn't work; especially when the statistics cannot be verified.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
CRBarrowDanTTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, but Con clearly had more evidence and better arguments.... Perhaps because Con's position is closer to reality... but I also think Con did a genuinely good job debating