The Instigator
ChadIrvin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
evanjfarrar
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
evanjfarrar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 98758
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

ChadIrvin

Pro

There are no rules for this debate after round 1. Round 1 is for acceptance only.

I (pro) will be arguing that most of mainstream media is racist toward whites because it pushes a certain political and leftist agenda. My opponent (con) will argue that there is no leftist agenda against whites and are not racist toward them.
evanjfarrar

Con

I accept. I warn my opponent that he bears the burden of proof in this case, while I do not. I simply have to prove my opponent wrong to win.
Debate Round No. 1
ChadIrvin

Pro

http://www.therebel.media...

http://www.libertyheadlines.com...

In the most recent case of media hatred for white America, is the case of the Facebook live stream of four black teens who kidnapped, tortured and ridiculed a white mentally disabled teen, all while shouting racial slurs and saying "f*ck Donald Trump!" What did the mainstream media do with this story? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing....

While news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox (to a lesser degree) will be quick to jump on stories where Trump supporters harass non Trump supporters and white-on-black crime occurs, they're silent on stories like the aforementioned. Sometimes they'll even lie to push the anti-white agenda the far left like to take.

http://www.allenbwest.com...

While these major news networks tend to favor minorities and their plight, women of any ethnic background (not really sure when women became a minority since there are slightly more women on this planet than men), they'll make up stories of white men degrading minorities and not bat an eye. It was quite prevalent during the presidential election.

"If you're a Trump supporter you're just an angry white man who hates minorities, including women." This was the constant barrage of slamming "whitey" during the election by the leftist mainstream media; CNN, MSNBC, etc....

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Also, let's take a quick look at what these mainstream media outlets report when a middle eastern man decides to commit an act of terror in the name of Islam here in the States, or anywhere else in the world...

When it is obvious the shootings or bombings were being carried out in the name of Islam and the attacker or attackers are Muslim, the media feels the need to wait and collect all the facts before jumping to conclusions. This is what they tell us. But when a white man decides to shoot up a school, five minutes after the fact, it's obvious racism or homophobia, or...you take your pick. Let's hurry and string 'em up and denounce this evil before we know what's happening. This is a constant norm today.

In the latest terror attack at Fort Lauderdale the media described the man as "a white man who sounded angry." Turns out, they were dead wrong. But until just recently, stuck with the narrative of "an angry white man."

https://therealstrategy.com...

http://bluelivesmatter.blue...

This occurs a lot in today's world. The media will continuously report on "whites committing crimes," while blacks committing crimes...well, they must have reasons for their criminal activities.

Let's just tell it as it is.
evanjfarrar

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument.

Let's start by defining what the "major news networks" consist of in order to bring some clarity to this debate. The major news networks air both opinion-based journalism and fact-based journalism. Opinion-based shows, which lay no claim to objectivity, dominate some major news networks, like MSNBC, and arguably Fox. A recent Pew Research study found that a large majority of reporting time on channels like MSNBC consist of opinion-based journalism. [1]

One of the key weaknesses of my opponent's argument is that he uses opinion-based journalism to validate a characteristic of both fact-based and opinion-based journalism on other networks. Such justification is completely unfounded. Sites such as TheRebel Media and Liberty Headlines serve in perpetuating a certain agenda by populating their sites with completely one-sided stories, with outrageous headlines like "How the Left pushed pedophilia" and "Saskatoon Police search for bearded, Middle Eastern looking men in KIDNAP AND GANG RAPE case". [2] My opponent presents a factual resolution for debate, and then attempts to justify his claim with opinions.

My opponent also makes the point that the mainstream media is "quick to jump" on stories which shed a negative light on "white America." I'd love to see some factual evidence that the mainstream media is more prompt to pick up stories favoring ethnic minorities rather than whites. I'd also love to see evidence that the mainstream media "makes up" stories about white men degrading minorities. I wonder if my opponent's sole justification for these positions is even more far-right opinion-based journalism.

My opponent attempts to prove the mainstream media's bias toward ethnic minorities by claiming that the media delays in labeling terror attacks as being committed by radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists when it is "obvious" that these terrorists committed these atrocities. I'd like to see some factual evidence, as well, that suggests this delay, and what it means by "obvious". As of now, this argument is completely unsubstantiated.

Also, as the resolution requires that my opponent prove that mainstream media outlets are "racist", I'd like to see evidence that the media actively promotes an agenda which portrays ethnic minorities as superior in some way.

Evidently, my opponent utterly fails to justify the resolution and advance his position. All of his sources display extreme bias, which, other than exposing the hypocrisy of my opponent, fail to factually substantiate Pro's claims. Completely speculatory and unfactual claims are littered throughout Pro's argument, such as the claim that mainstream media outlets fail to label attacks as being committed by radical fundamentalists when it is "obvious".

Clearly, Pro needs to make a choice: either present a factual argument to prove that the mainstream media is "racist toward white people," or continue on the path he is currently on, presenting wildy antifactual sources and simply speculating.


[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[2] http://www.therebel.media...
Debate Round No. 2
ChadIrvin

Pro

I'll begin this round by thanking my opponent for a swift reply.

"Let's start by defining what the "major news networks" consist of in order to bring some clarity to this debate. The major news networks air both opinion-based journalism and fact-based journalism. Opinion-based shows, which lay no claim to objectivity, dominate some major news networks, like MSNBC, and arguably Fox. A recent Pew Research study found that a large majority of reporting time on channels like MSNBC consist of opinion-based journalism. [1]"

I don't like to call opinion based shows on a major news network as real journalism. Sure, journalism may have a small role in making their claims, but in the end it is just that ... opinions. Opinions can be based on fact and may even be correct assessments of the given stories, but not everyone will take the facts the same way. I see way too many lies being told by most major news networks claiming it's fact-based journalism when in reality it's just made up stories to fit a mostly leftist agenda. Most of these agendas are aimed at the middle class and wealthy middle aged white man.

The most recent attack on white America was in the latest terror attack here in the States at Fort Lauderdale Airport. If the facts were given as facts and not as "probable outcomes" we wouldn't be assuming that the shooter was white as CNN had originally suggested he was. Labeling someone a "white Hispanic" doesn't really seem too logical, since it doesn't really matter what shade of Hispanic the shooter was. It's the leftist media bias that thinks it's important.

http://www.wnd.com...

"One of the key weaknesses of my opponent's argument is that he uses opinion-based journalism to validate a characteristic of both fact-based and opinion-based journalism on other networks."

Opinion based journalism isn't the problem so much as opinion based journalism being used to prove something as fact by the mainstream media who tout themselves as fact based, unbiased journalists. I'm using these as links to opinions outing biased journalism.

"Such justification is completely unfounded. Sites such as TheRebel Media and Liberty Headlines serve in perpetuating a certain agenda by populating their sites with completely one-sided stories, ... "

TheRebel Media is, yes, a "biased" site that pushes an agenda. Most of what they push, however, is exposing the hypocrisy of the leftist media. Usually doing pieces on feminism and their man-bashing agendas. Feminists are, in many instances, also racists. Their hatred for men is quite prevalent, especially their disdain for rich, white males.

"My opponent also makes the point that the mainstream media is "quick to jump" on stories which shed a negative light on "white America." I'd love to see some factual evidence that the mainstream media is more prompt to pick up stories favoring ethnic minorities rather than whites."

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
http://www.aim.org...

Other opinion based links? Sure. Are the news stories contained within factual? Yes. These are just a couple of examples of media covering up stories or changing stories to fit racist agendas against whites. And just to "prove" they aren't being racist toward minorities.

"Also, as the resolution requires that my opponent prove that mainstream media outlets are "racist", I'd like to see evidence that the media actively promotes an agenda which portrays ethnic minorities as superior in some way."

By not covering stories of terror acted out in the name of Islam (mostly perps of middle eastern decent) and trying to show the attackers in a more understanding light, they are showing their bigotry. If someone commits a crime that is covered in mainstream media, there is a discernible difference in the coverage between minorities and whites.

If a black man commits a crime and a white cop shoots the suspect, the media is outraged and quickly stirs up anger among black America. It doesn't matter if the criminal had committed a violent crime just a few minutes prior.

https://www.youtube.com...

In this instance the media quickly sided with the notion that Michael Brown was a peaceful kid who was just misguided. He wasn't violent. And here's some awesome unbiased reporting by Cooper Anderson of CNN. Clearly not trying to ask misleading questions about Michael Brown.

https://www.youtube.com...

"Clearly, Pro needs to make a choice: either present a factual argument to prove that the mainstream media is "racist toward white people," or continue on the path he is currently on, presenting wildy antifactual sources and simply speculating."

As my opponent has stated, I am not giving a factual argument, which I believe I have done so. Every link I provided in both arguments have been fact, whether or not they were presented by someone with an agenda. They presented facts
evanjfarrar

Con

It is clear that, at this point in the debate, we have just proven that my opponent has adopted the post-truth mindset that many other politicians (including our very own president-elect) has brought to light. Let me explain.

Let it first be recognized that my opponent spent the entirety of the last round responding to my arguments. None of his arguments are actually extended.

Nevertheless, here is my rebuttal.


R1: Truth in the Media, and How My Opponent Misunderstands It

"True" is a term my opponent seems to throw around aimlessly in order to garner some sort of legitimacy. It fails to substantiate his claims.

I have explained quite clearly what opinion-based journalism is and how it differs from fact-based journalism. My opponent even acknowledges that opinion-based journalism exists. However, he fails to see why this distinction matters. Opinion-based journalism lays no claim to objectivity. That means that it is that opinion-based journalism does not necessarily have a factual basis. I admit a lot of opinion-based journalism (take The O'Reilly Factor, for instance) is not factual at all.

The fact of the matter is that my opponent is using opinion-based pieces in order to justify an attack on fact-based media. That simply does not compute. The sites that my opponent uses to collect his so-called evidence share in advocating for a certain right-wing agenda that completely exposes the hypocrisy at the very core of my opponent's argument. Pro is using biased media outlets to claim that mainstream outlets are biased. You simply cannot factually support the claim that the mainstream media is racist if your only evidence is an angry middle-aged man behind a computer screen that just so happens to agree with you.


R2: The Hypocrisy of "Probable Outcomes"

Yet another dilemma at the core of my opponent's argument, that he just so conveniently exposes for us all to see.

"The most recent attack on white America was in the latest terror attack here in the States at Fort Lauderdale Airport. If the facts were given as facts and not as "probable outcomes" we wouldn't be assuming that the shooter was white as CNN had originally suggested he was."

Oh, so the media shouldn't jump to conclusions...

From R2: "When it is obvious the shootings or bombings were being carried out in the name of Islam and the attacker or attackers are Muslim, the media feels the need to wait and collect all the facts before jumping to conclusions."

My opponent simply needs to decide which side he's on. Should they "wait and collect all the facts" as they do in cases of terrorism? Or should they simply state the facts, as evidently they were immediately "obvious" in the Ft. Lauderdale shooting....

Clearly, Pro is simply picking through specific situations, cherry by cherry, and then framing them as he'd like by showering us with opinion-based far-right journalism to supposedly substantiate these positions. It simply makes no sense, and does not prove anything about the nature of mainstream media. His arguments only seem to prove that a couple people writing for far-right news sites think that CNN is out to get them.


R3: Just Some More Useless, Baseless and Absurd Accusations

Let's just go through some of the ridiculously baseless things my opponent has said during this round, that neither advances his position nor garners him any credibility...

"when in reality it's just made up stories to fit a mostly leftist agenda. Most of these agendas are aimed at the middle class and wealthy middle aged white man."

What IS your reality? Is it what you have read on all these sites you are citing? Because that's just as bad as what you claim the mainstream media is fobbing us off with. And, again, no evidence. No agendas evident as of yet.

"The most recent attack on white America was in the latest terror attack here in the States at Fort Lauderdale Airport."

Sorry, what is white America? Is it some country I've never heard of? And what does an "attack on white America" have to do with the "racist mainstream media'?

"Labeling someone a "white Hispanic" doesn't really seem too logical, since it doesn't really matter what shade of Hispanic the shooter was. It's the leftist media bias that thinks it's important."

Ummm... white Hispanic? That sounds like profiling of Hispanics, if anything. Not racism towards whites.

"By not covering stories of terror acted out in the name of Islam (mostly perps of middle eastern decent) and trying to show the attackers in a more understanding light, they are showing their bigotry."

First of all, I don't call circulating the terrorists' pictures and reporting for days on attacks like the Paris attacks "not covering" these events. Secondly, since when is bigotry being "understanding"? Since when is bigotry being sensible, and reasonable? This is ludicrous.

-------

My opponent lacks credibility. He has completely botched his entire argument by using sources which are biased at their core and only serve to advance an agenda. It is pure, unbridled hypocrisy.
Debate Round No. 3
ChadIrvin

Pro

It doesn't matter what I post, my opponent will always say I am posting biased links. This is how the left debates. If the facts don't add up to what they believe to be true, it's biased. the links I posted were from right-leaning sites, that I agree with my opponent on. However, the content contained within were just plain facts.

CNN is a major news network; possibly one of the most well known in that field. They have also been outed several times on reporting fake news or distorted news to fit their agenda. They continuously invite guests that have ideals of hatred toward whites. One recurring guest in particular, Jamilah Lemieux, will always spew her racist rhetoric on whites and cops. https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

And even MSNBC brings her on as a "panel guest" to spew her racist rhetoric. And you can't tell me they didn't know about her racism before hand. And what does MSNBC do at the end of the segment? They tell their audience they don't agree with her statements ... yeah, like we're going to believe that. If you don't agree with her racism, why are you bringing her on as a guest to spew her racism?

https://www.youtube.com...

My opponent, I am sure, will bring up reasons as to why Youtube is biased, just as he brought up the bias in my previous links. I could look for evidence that CNN and the other networks claim to be racist, but who will claim it? CNN isn't going to come out and call themselves racist. I have presented plenty of evidence to prove they are racist by bringing their reoccurring racist guests on their shows. You hang around a racist, you get labelled a racist.

Racism is racism, even when that racism is directed toward whites. Shocker, I know. Black people and other minorities can be racist as well.
evanjfarrar

Con

First of all, I thank my opponent for this debate. It's been fun.

I'd also like to thank my opponent for brilliantly summarizing his entire position in just two sentences: "the links I posted were from right-leaning sites, that I agree with my opponent on. However, the content contained within were just plain facts." My opponent has managed to display the entire problem at the heart of this debate in one fell swoop.

As I displayed in Round 3, my opponent fails to understand the issue of truth in the media; this is evident in the sources he uses. As he concedes, the websites he pulls "evidence" from are right-leaning. But this is what my opponent does not recognize: because of this bias, the information he is presenting is no better than the information perpetuated by the mainstream media that he claims to be false. This is not a leftist objection, but a logical one.

My opponent also FINALLY attempts to explain how mainstream media outlets are racist against whites: their guests. Pro presents the example of Jamilah Lemieux, the left-leaning Ebony Magazine editor. She often appears on panels on CNN and MSNBC. What my opponent does not understand is she is simply present to fulfill CNN and MSNBC's obligation to the public. Let me explain.

Panels are brought together to discuss issues from multiple perspectives, providing viewers with different opinions to consider rather than propaganda. Are the journalists moderating these panel discussions promoting Lemieux's rhetoric, racist or not? No. Is anything being said that would indicate that Lemieux's position is superior to that of right-leaning panelists? No. Even though I would argue nothing Lemieux said was promoting a racist agenda, even IF Lemieux's statements could be construed as racist, that would not make the channel she happened to appear on racist. If CNN interviewed Donald Trump (as they have in the past), would that make CNN biased towards him? No. Framing this as an issue of "You hang around a racist, you get labeled a racist" simply makes no sense. These news outlets are just trying to present multiple perspectives, and the perspectives of Lemieux and that one Republican strategist are weighted equally; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Clearly, my opponent has presented nothing that would have us reasonably believe that mainstream media outlets are racist against white people. The "evidence" he uses is no better than the information he has us believe is false. His speculations are meaningless, and do not advance his position at all. Pro utterly misses the mark in his understanding of media bias and opinion-based vs. fact-based journalism. That is it. This entire debate has been nothing but antifactual, absurd speculation at my opponent's end.

All of my opponent's arguments have been dropped at some point in this debate; thus, I urge you to vote Con, as I believe Pro's "argument" has been refuted in full.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
The, "White guys the victim now" garbage is just perverse, let alone incorrect.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
"Evidently, my opponent utterly fails to justify the resolution and advance his position. All of his sources display extreme bias, which, other than exposing the hypocrisy of my opponent, fail to factually substantiate Pro's claims."
WHAT A SICK BURN!!!111!11!!1!!!!!
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
If you want more detail for the RFD please just ask. Ran out of Characters before I could say that Con exposed the contradiction in journalism standards Pro both sought and criticized. Pro wants reporters to wait and gather facts, as well as state facts immediately. Con exposes this contradiction in Pro's case.
Posted by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
I would say good luck proving that major news networks are racist period.
Posted by Packers49 1 year ago
Packers49
"Bears the burden of proof"... lmao
Good Luck Evan if he hits you with facts your screwed
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
ChadIrvinevanjfarrarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution is a sweeping generalization and carries a heavy burden. Pro misses the mark. A large portion of the Pro case was personal vitriol; showcasing his own contempt for anything he sees as "left" Specifically, Pro never shows that mainstream media (CNN) is engaged in racism. Since Con pointed out that Pro never proved mainstream media engages in racism that is all Con needs to carry the event. Con also shows that the "sources" offered by pro are engaged in a form of the behavior Pro presumes to criticize. Con also dismantles the two topical arguments of Pro: stories covered and guests on panels (on CNN) Con shows Pro's example CNN guest is one of many of varied narratives, and the Con example of Trump as a guest is enough to support the notion that CNN is not rolling out the red carpet for one select narrative. Pro ask journalists to gather all the facts first, and also asks them to state "obvious facts" immediately. Con shows us this. More detailed