The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Resolved: The average intelligence of a Fox News Anchor is = or < the average intelligence of a rock

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 9 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2012 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,552 times Debate No: 25046
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

imabench

Pro

The resolution is pretty straightforward, Pro must argue why the average Fox News anchorman is about as smart as a rock or less than that of a rock, while the con must argue that Fox News anchormen are capable of intellectual thought, reasoning, and logical conclusions based on evidence.

First round is acceptance only :D
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I accept, and I will be arguing that "Fox News anchormen are capable of intellectual thought, reasoning, and logical conclusions based on evidence" and that "The average intelligence of a Fox News Anchor is [greater than] the average intelligence of a rock"

Definitions

Rock: Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. [1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]
Average Fox News Anchorman: Mike Huckabee; Geraldo Rivera; Neil Cavuto; Sean Hannity; Bill O'Reilly; Chris Wallace; Shepard Smith; Bret Baier; Carl Cameron. [2. http://www.foxnews.com...]

Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similarforms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths,relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
[3. http://dictionary.reference.com...]

I look forward to a great, non-semantic debate. Good luck, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

"I look forward to a great, non-semantic debate"

LOL!!! Have you ever seen any of my debates???

As for the definition of "Average Fox Anchorman", it would appear that the Con went to a fox news site to get a list of anchormen. However we all know that any site by fox news is horrendously biased and misleading, so instead I will quote a more factual internet site to get a list of fox news anchors....................... Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to Wikipedia, the lineup of Fox News Anchors include:
- Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade for "Fox and Friends"
- Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCalium for "America's Newsroom"
- Jon Scott and Jenna Lee for "Happening Now"
- Megyn Kelly for "America Live"
- Shepard Smith with "Studio B" and later again on "Fox Report"
- Neil Cavuto on "Your World"
- Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Eric Bolling, Andrea Tantaros, Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Juan Williams host "The Five"
- Bret Baier on "Special Report with Bret Baier
- Bill O'Reilly on "The O'Reilly factor"
- Sean Hannity on "Hannity"
and lastly, - Greta Van Susteren on "On the record"

So of the 9 people the con named as fox news anchors according to fox news, only 4 of them actually have their own segments on fox news. Therefore I would like to admit this claim into evidence against Fox News in the argument that half the stuff they claim is pure bullsh*t.

Moving on then, there are 11 regular segments on Fox News that shall be analyzed to see if the anchormen on those shows are dumb/dumber then rocks, or not. A video will be provided of each show (shown to the right in order of time slot) and the quality of information will determine if the pundits on those shows are as dumb as rocks, ON AVERAGE.

Videos will receive one of two grades, "Dumb as rocks" if information given is beyond stupid, and "Factual and informative" if the information is actually correct

Lets begin:




First video = Fox and friends
Grade = Dumb as rocks......




Second Video = America's Newsroom
Grade = Factual and Informative




Third Video = Happening Now
Grade = Dumb as rocks.....




Fourth Video = America Live
Grade = Dumb as rocks.....




Fifth Video = Shepard Smith on Fox Report
Grade = Dumb as rocks.....




Sixth Video = Your World
Grade = Factual and Informative




Seventh Video = The Five
Grade = Dumb as rocks.....




Eighth Video = Special Report with Bret Baier
Grade = Factual and Informative




Ninth Video = The O'Reilly Factor
Grade = Dumb as Rocks....




Tenth Video = Hannity
Grade = Dumb as Rocks....




Eleventh Video = On the record
Grade = Factual and Informative




So the final score by TV segments is
Dumb as rocks = 7
Factual and informative = 4

But if you factor in how many hosts there are per show, then the score gets a little more lopsided since "The Five" has five anchors and "Fox and Freinds" has three, adding those extra anchormen into the score and the new tally is
Dumb as Rocks = 13
Factual and Informative = 4

This basically states that since 13 of 17 anchormen on fox news are dumb as rocks, the percentage of anchormen on Fox news that are dumb as rocks is 13 / 17 = 76.5%

76.5% of all fox news anchors are dumb as rocks, and since average in the debate resolution refers to 50% (Sorry if I didnt make that clear before) then I have met my bop showing that the average (>50%) of fox news anchors are indeed dumb as rocks.

Back to you Con :D
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Thanks for that argument, Pro.


Establishing the Basics


Living things are complex and organized compared with nonliving matter of similar size (e.g. rocks). They perceive and respond to stimuli in their internal and external environments. They have the capacity to evolve, and increase in complexity, especially with brain functioning. Generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities, the human brain is believed to be more "intelligent" in general than that of any other known species. The news anchors of Fox News are all members of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Even the most primitive animals are more intelligent than rocks through their neural complexity, ability to respond to stimuli, and functioning; homo sapiens are the most intelligent animals; therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks. [1, 2]


Fox News Anchors are More Intelligent than Rocks (and Average Humans)

I established in the previous contention the syllogism: “Even the most primitive animals are more intelligent than rocks through their neural complexity, ability to respond to stimuli, and functioning; homo sapiens are the most intelligent animals; therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks.” However, to give myself a considerable lead, I’ll widen my margin of safety even further by demonstrating that Fox News anchors are more intelligent than the average human.

Based on IQ standards in the United States set to an average of 100, the world’s average IQ is around 90. There are a few categories that place Fox News Anchors above the world’s average IQ and the US average IQ: college education, salary, real-life accomplishments, and school performance are positively correlated with IQ. Although we don’t have their official IQ, the statistics point to a higher IQ not only of homo sapiens, but of homo sapiens americanus. [3]

All Fox News Anchors have college degrees. In fact, a few have attended Harvard (the most prestigious University in the world) like Bill O’Reilly. [4] This points to Fox News anchors not only being more intelligent than rocks, lower animals, average human beings, but Americans.

Therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks.


I will rebut Pro’s claims in the coming round to keep the rounds fair. Please try to be funnier in the coming round, Pro.


[1] http://www.molecularstation.com...
[2] http://eol.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'Reilly_(political_commentator)
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

"I will rebut Pro’s claims in the coming round to keep the rounds fair. Please try to be funnier in the coming round, Pro."

Ok I am asking for an immediate concession of the conduct point among voters. Anybody who takes a troll debate seriously, responds seriously, and then asks the pro to be funnier after not addressing any of his videos he had to find is clearly not good conduct and should thus be penalized.

Now back to the main argument

"Even the most primitive animals are more intelligent than rocks"

You underestimate the power and intelligence of rocks sir, I will now present this as evidence showing just how intelligent rocks are. The footage you are about to see comes from the movie "At World's End" when rocks coordinate and communicate to move a massive ship (The Black Pearl) across desert and into the ocean.


See, rocks clearly moved the ship from the desert to the ocean, all by themselves, with no help from people.

Your "all life is smarter than rocks" argument has therefore been debunked.

"There are a few categories that place Fox News Anchors above the world’s average IQ and the US average IQ"

And there are several other categories that place Fox News Anchors below the average IQ of a pile of crap which you conveniently left out of your argument.

"All Fox News Anchors have college degrees"

According to the videos I posted before, those degrees were probably earned by cheating off the smart Asian kids who sat in front of them during the tests, and the Fox Anchors clearly didnt learn sh*t....

"In fact, a few have attended Harvard (the most prestigious University in the world) like Bill O’Reilly"

Your own source even says that Bill O'Reilly didnt attend Harvard, in fact your own source clearly states that
"After graduating from high school in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York, his father's choice"

Who told you that O'Reilly attended Harvard? Was it O'Reilly??? (If that is the case I would like to add this as more evidence showing that Fox News Anchors are full of sh*t)

Clearly the Con's sources completely falsify his own claims (Just like Fox News Anchors on Fox News ;D) So rather than do the Con's work for him and see which colleges these anchors went too and cheated off the smart asian in front of them, Ill just dismiss his claims that Fox News Anchors are smart as bullsh*t until proven otherwise. (RELEASE THEIR TRANSCRIPTS!!!!!)

Lastly their is the claim that Fox News Anchors are smarter than the average American
1) See videos above
2) The reason why the average American IQ is at 100 instead of much higher like it was in the past is because people watch fox news and thus become stupider. There are many studies showing that people who watch Fox News are much more misinformed then just about anybody else, and there is a ton of evidence supporting this claim

Ton of Evidence:
Sources showing that people who watch Fox News are the most misinformed:

"The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions." - Page 12
http://www.pipa.org...

"There was also differences by where people get their information with higher shares of those who report CNN (35%) or MSNBC (39%) as their primary news source getting 7 or more questions right [out of 10 questions in the survey] compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25%)" - Page 4
http://www.kff.org...

"People who use CNN and NPR believe fewer false rumors (compared to those who watch Fox News)" - Page 3
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu...

" There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers. But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available evidence—especially in areas of political controversy."
http://www.alternet.org...

"they found that voters who made the effort to watch TV news and read about the issues were less likely to be misinformed. Not surprisingly, there was a significant exception: Fox News."
http://www.usnews.com...

"The release yesterday of yet another survey indicating the more you watch Fox News the less they know"
http://mediamatters.org...

" 7 Studies Showing That Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed"
http://scienceprogressaction.org...

"As was the case eight years ago, Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be confused about reality."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...

"Yet another study has shown that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed about important political issues — this time, global warming"
http://grist.org...

Heres the best one:

"Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Since rocks dont watch the news at all and people who watch fox news are less informed then those who dont watch the news at all, one can conclude that people who watch fox news are not as informed as rocks. Therefore the anchors telling things to viewers making them less informed than rocks implies the anchors are less informed then rocks.

So all in all, Rocks are intelligent since they can move ships over land by themselves, people who watch Fox news are less informed then people who dont even watch the news, rocks are more informed than people who watch fox news, and the videos from the previous round show how dumb the fox news anchors are.

Wallstreetatheist

Con

Thank you, Pro, for that highly entertaining argument.

To outline the round, I will uphold my own argument while simultaneously deconstructing my opponent’s argument.

To begin, let’s chat about the intelligence of rocks.


I. Rocks


A. Background


1. The pre-established definition of a rock is as follows: Rock: Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. [1]


2. By contrast, let’s consider the definition and requirements for a living thing.

Living thing: Any organism or a living form that possesses or shows the

characteristics of life or being alive. [2]


Living things are those that display the following characteristics. [2]

a. An organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells.

b. Requires energy to survive or sustain existence.

c. Ability to reproduce.

d. Ability to grow.

e. Ability to metabolize.

f. Ability to respond to stimuli.

g. Ability to adapt to the environment.

h. Ability to respire.


3. Intelligence: The capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. [3]


B. Premise: The ability to be intelligent is necessarily connected to being a living thing.


1. Because the capacity for mental activity must firstly be derived from a source, that is, what causes the ability, it follows logically that the ability to grow, respond to stimuli, adapt to the environment, etc. naturally creates the ability for intelligence, while a material formed from petrified matter, would not.


2. Because the qualifications for a rock do not contain the qualifications for intelligence, it is not possible that a rock might acquire this quality.


C. Pro’s Proof


1. “The footage you are about to see comes from the movie "At World's End" when rocks coordinate and communicate to move a massive ship (across desert and into the ocean.”


Pro attempts to prove that “when rocks [as shown in the provided video] coordinate and communicate to move a massive ship,” they are demonstrating their intelligent powers. Pro gives no actual evidence of what is propelling this massive ship is a league of coordinating and communicating rocks. The only visible surface is sand. The intelligence of sand, however, is irrelevant to this debate. Pro, therefore, has yet to prove that rocks contain any intelligent powers.

Furthermore, when discussing the movement of the ship with the video owner, he said the movement of the ship was due to intelligent life, "The crabs moved the ship, loads of them." Therefore, Pro is actually carving away at his own case with this counter-evidence.


But enough about rocks. Let’s move on to the videos that Pro was so anxious we address.


II. Pro’s Constructive


A. Pro’s initial constructive consisted of a video representation of each news or analysis program on the network in an attempt to the idiocy of fox anchormen. Pro does this by rating the programs based upon their “quality of information.”


B. Problems with video analysis:


1. Only minute segments of each show was cited, enabling the viewer to see only the most what were perhaps merely extreme scenarios as relating to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the anchor.


2. Because the “grade” given the video clip was bestowed by Pro himself, it is fairly obvious that the potential for the grade to be biased or slanted towards Pro’s purposes exists.


3. Lastly, there was no evidence cited to prove that the information given by the anchors in the videos is misleading, fallacious, or non factual. It is necessary for Pro to provide these sources before making this claim.


C. Pro’s main argument consists of the complaint that the information the Fox News network provides is “pure bullshi*t” as well as “horrendously biased and misleading.”


1. “Sources showing that people who watch Fox News are the most misinformed...”


The fact that people are in fact informed regardless of whether they are given false information proves that the average intelligence of a fox news anchor is greater than the intelligence of a rock.


2. Regardless of what we are projecting onto others, be it unintelligent, misinformed, and the like, their simple ability to project anything is what proves that they have an intelligence above that of a petrified matter, and qualifies their above-rock- level intelligence.


It is for all the preceding reasons I ask for a Con vote in this debate. Thank you for reading and debating :)


======References======


[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.biology-online.org...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

A) The Video of rocks

"Pro attempts to prove that…"when rocks [as shown in the provided video] coordinate and communicate to move a massive ship, they are demonstrating their intelligent powers. Pro gives no actual evidence of what is propelling this massive ship is a league of coordinating and communicating rocks. The only visible surface is sand. The intelligence of sand, however, is irrelevant to this debate. Pro, therefore, has yet to prove that rocks contain any intelligent powers."

So the Con attributes the moving of the ship to the sand since the rocks werent seen. If however I do show the rocks were moving the ship, then the rocks would be seen as intelligent, not the sand. So here is (lower quality) evidence showing it was indeed the rocks moving the ship, not the sand.



"Furthermore, when discussing the movement of the ship with the video owner, he said the movement of the ship was due to intelligent life, "The crabs moved the ship, loads of them." Therefore, Pro is actually carving away at his own case with this counter-evidence."

That is an outright and blatant lie. I never said "The crabs moved the ship, loads of them" anywhere in this debate ever. You are misquoting me and then trying to use it against me, I now legitimately ask for a conduct penalty by the con for falsifying evidence.

B) Issues with the analysis of videos in round 2

"Only minute segments of each show was cited, enabling the viewer to see only the most what were perhaps merely extreme scenarios as relating to the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the anchor."

They were not extreme scenarios, they were the first things that came up when I researched the names of the anchors on youtube, I did not devote time to going out of my way to look for these scenes, they were the first thing that came up so this is normal footage of the quality of reporting from Fox News."Because the "grade"� given the video clip was bestowed by Pro himself, it is fairly obvious that the potential for the grade to be biased or slanted towards Pro's purposes exists."

If you had a problem with it you shouldnt have waited until my last round to say something about it! I voted fairly on the videos presented regarding the reporting by giving them approval or disapproval, you seem to be more concerned about my word choice instead of the guilty verdict, but the word choice isnt relevant, the videos speak for themselves.

"Lastly, there was no evidence cited to prove that the information given by the anchors in the videos is misleading"

I cannot waste character space arguing that Halloween doesnt turn kids into liberals contrary to what Hannity claimed. I only have to show their idiocy because the voters are smart enough to know whats fact and whats bullsh*t to conclude whether or not the anchors making these claims are dumb as rocks.

"The fact that people are in fact informed regardless of whether they are given false information proves that the average intelligence of a fox news anchor is greater than the intelligence of a rock."

Being wrong =/= intelligence. If I said that crab people are trying to use Paul Ryan to drive us into debt so that they could then kill us when we're weak that wouldnt = intelligence.

"Their simple ability to project anything is what proves that they have an intelligence above that of a petrified matter"

You claim that rocks cant project anything, however the fact that people have pet rocks show that rocks can respond to human behavior, be domesticated, socialize with other pet rocks, sniff each others poop, etc. shows they CAN project intelligence.



============================================================================

Here are my final points:

1) Rocks can show intelligence, be domesticated, be kept as pets, work in groups, etc that make them intelligent
2) Fox News Anchors on average cannot show intelligence, as given by the video's above whose accuracy was not approved by the con
3) The con has granted the moving of the ship to the intelligence of sand, however I have clarified that the rocks were moving them, therefore he must now attribute the intelligence of sand to that of rocks.
4) The con has deliberately misquoted me
5) The con has asked me to be funnier while not being funny at all
6) Watching Fox News makes people more misinformed then people who dont watch fox news,rocks dont watch fox news but millions of Americans do,rocks are smarter then the average American.
7) I have given numerous sources showing the idiocy of the average Fox News Anchors and how their idiocy can even make other people turn into idiots
8) The Con as made false claims about the college education of Fox News Anchors and who actually hosts Fox News shows.
9) Con has used sources written by Fox News that are blatantly false which is another example of how they misinform people.

Thank you for reading, all the people who can take a joke can vote pro and everyone offended by this debate because they watch fox may proceed on voting con :)
Wallstreetatheist

Con


I would like to conclude the debate with a rebuttal of my opponent’s points, as well as a final clarification and review of my own.



1) “Con attributes the moving of the ship to the sand since the rocks weren’t seen. If however I do show the rocks were moving the ship, then the rocks would be seen as intelligent, not the sand.”



My point here was not simply that what cannot be seen cannot be moving the ship (which is not necessarily true), but that Pro had absolutely no justification for the claim that rocks were moving the ship.



2) “That is an outright and blatant lie. I never said ‘The crabs moved the ship, loads of them.’”



I am afraid Pro misunderstood this significant point. For the sake of voters, however, let me clarify. The quote “The crabs moved the ship, loads of them,” is not a quote from Pro, but a quote from the owner of the video that Pro cited. Please refer to the comment section of that video.



3) “They were not extreme scenarios, they were the first things that came up when I researched the names of the anchors on youtube…”



“I cannot waste character space arguing that Halloween doesnt turn kids into liberals contrary to what Hannity claimed.”



Pro does not believe that it is necessary to back up his judgment of fox news anchors with evidence, and while this may be merely a personal whim, Pro has failed to actually prove anything within this debate.



4) “Being wrong =/= intelligence. If I said that crab people are trying to use Paul Ryan to drive us into debt so that they could then kill us when we're weak that wouldnt = intelligence.”



Voters, the debate boils down to this: just because one lacks intelligence does not mean that they are unable to function. If rocks could attempt to use Paul Ryan to drive us into debt they would have an intelligence greater than if they never functioned at all.


Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Burns 4 years ago
Burns
Lol at all the serious comments
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
ummm adonti, the votebomb has already been countered
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
hey dylancatlow, give an actual RFD you douche
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Much of pros argument argues fox news viewers are misinformed. However, as con shows, this is irrelevant to a fox news's anchors intelligence. PROS response is weak and gives con a large edge. He showed the ability to function (move etc.) already means you have larger capability then a rock and, therefore, he wins the debate.

What I also find hilarious is PRO criticizes CONS sources yet he cites sources which are known to be liberally biased...

CON showed many of these anchors go to many good colleges, such as Harvard. That shows they likely have higher intelligence. PRO argues it was likely by cheating... this is a mere assertion. And, anyway, someone beating another in a FOX news debate =/= lack of intelligence...

Basically I needn't go further as CON showed these anchors can move and speak and, therefore, have higher capability then rocks...
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
The average IQ in the world is 90? What? Dang...thats low. I didnt know that.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Me like Hannity! Me no happy! Me angry! Reagan smash!
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
70% of people would rather have a Tic-Tac as a president than George W. Bush.
Relevant: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...

Slightly relevant....ok not really
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
We should do a real debate one day. You accepted my Ron Paul is a glorious steed from the delicious semen of the heavens and his policies are FUCKIN' ROCK SOLID, but then you left.

What do we disagree on?
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I might as well be, theres no way in hell DDO os gonna let me win this debate XD.

Just have fun with it you'll win either way
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: @dylancatlow: Please do. AMEND 1: @adontimasu: You did see my counter right? I will vote on this later
Vote Placed by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Votebombs aren't cool, brah.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 5 years ago
dylancatlow
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Do I even need to explain?
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL! Fox news anchormen ARE dumber than rocks(Msnbc ones are too) Anyways, Con won because Pro did not meet BOP. I give conduct to Pro because Con knew this was supposed to be a troll debate.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 5 years ago
XStrikeX
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won because Pro was not successful in proving that Fox anchors are as dumb as rocks. Though Pro was trolling, Con should not lose the debate. Perhaps he lost as he was trolled, but he won the actual debate. Also counter Viper-King VB.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Commentators are not news anchors, and disagreeing with them does make them stupid. Just expressing hatred for people you disagree with is not funny, it's a call to fellow haters.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a troll debate. Imabench obviously won it. Conduct for not understanding a troll debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
imabenchWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: My analysis will be in the comments. However I will state an opinion here: the study used in all of those sources comes from one study which was highly discredited.