The Instigator
Stupidape
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Snopes.com is a liberal agenda machine.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 94055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Con

Claim: Snopes is honest.

Warrant: Innocent until proven guilty.

Impact: Snopes remains honest until proven otherwise by my opponent.

1. http://www.snopes.com...
brontoraptor

Pro

Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 6 headed cow someone emailed you isn't a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Monster energy drink's logo is really satanic. Snopes.com is okay for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don't count on them being "fair and balanced" when it comes to anything political or religious.

--

Although Snopes does not have any political philosophy explicitly stated on the website, snopes' selectivity and analysis of political emails stinks with partisanship. Religious emails don't fare any better and typically get a liberal hatchet job. In a nutshell, although snopes has to reluctantly admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are "true" as far as snopes can determine, there is always a footnote or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through snopes' personal view.

----

"Lord of the Ring"

On this topic snopes put "False", and it is still "false"right this second.

http://www.snopes.com...

In snopes' dialogue on the issue they state, "One might also consider the incongruity that a politician who has long been dealing with (and denying) rumors that he is a Muslim would openly wear a symbol demonstrating those rumors to be true."

So they are using semantics to "prove" it is not a Shahada ring and not actual EVIDENCE in this quote.

He has not hidden his Muslim roots otherwise though. He has not hidden that he went to school in Indonesia(the largest of all Muslim countries) and took Islamic classes as a child. He has not hidden "hearing the call of the Azan at the break of dawn" as a kid. He has not hidden his father's Muslim background. He was known as Barry Soerto according to his classmates in college, and changed his name to a Muslim name, "Barack Hussein Obama" as a well established adult around 1980. So...why would he hide THIS or care? He didn't and he doesn't.

http://www.newsweek.com...

Snopes tried to claim it was probably just arbitrary markings, but keep in mind, he's been wearing this same ring for over 30 years. This isn't some meaningless, arbitrary ring. Would you wear a meaningless ring for 30+ years?

Another telling clue is that the Shahada ring is worn on the left hand. Obama wears and wore his on the left hand. By Western thought, he adorned it as a wedding ring by Western school of thought, but he was not married when he was wearing it in pictures from his younger years. This is because he was using Eastern thought, not Western thought.

http://www.thesunniway.com...

*

And the most telling of evidence to their false account was my meeting Barack Obama at a job related event in Cushing, Oklahoma. I was raised in Islam, so I was well aware of what the ring was. I didn't think anything really about it, nor did I care. But when 2 white people began arguing about the ring and snopes' claim, I was taken aback. I thought about it a moment, and because I did not know what snopes was, I was quick to tell them it was probably some liberal site. Ironically, I was right in my naivity.

----

Picture of bismillah-

http://www.wallpapersforu.com...

----

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://m.sj-r.com...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com...

http://m.aliexpress.com...

http://www.aliexpress.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Con

The Obama's ring doesn't seem obvious to me. Most of the images you show are blurry or side images. They might not even be Obama's hand. The only clear image shows a completely different symbol.

You rely upon your own personal anecdotal evidence, which could easily been made up. Not only that but you put the facts together afterwards, admitting that at first you thought nothing of it. You simply could have remembered incorrectly. Eye witness accounts are notorious for being inaccurate in a court of law. That's why DNA evidence is so much more potent.


Even if you are correct in that Snopes.com got it wrong, all this proves is they are fallible. There is a large difference between telling a falsehood and lying.

"So they are using semantics to "prove" it is not a Shahada ring and not actual EVIDENCE in this quote." Brontoraptor


The evidence is in the photos. The most clear photo shows an abstract pattern. As seen below.




Compare that to the distant photo below:

s://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com...; alt="Obama Ring No God But Allah" width="350" height="453" />


Finally, the photo that might not even be Obama. Anyone could be wearing this ring.

s://nteb-mudflowermedia.netdna-ssl.com...; alt="" width="300" height="300" />

1. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
brontoraptor

Pro

Let's see if I can make this make sense for you.

"The evidence is in the photos. The most clear photo shows an abstract pattern. As seen below."

This is not an abstract pattern. In Arabic, "al" is an article or a word for "the", so al-Lah means "the God".

In Arabic, the name "Allah" is composed of four letters, Alif Lam Lam Ha, read from right to left, which when brought together make the serpent-like symbol you see on the picture.

*

Allah picture link-

http://sufi-mystic.net...

*

Picture it like this to understand. If you wrote the word "God" on a piece of paper, you could write it many ways in English. Yes?

You could write it in block letters, slanted letters, or cursive, but any English reading person would still recognize the word nevertheless. Yes?

*

Here is a link that shows an abstract version to be seen that it looks a bit different but is the same thing.

http://www.redbubble.com...

It's like if you saw a swastika. You would know what it is even if drawn in a different form. You don't need someone to explain it to you do you? No, you do not.

*

Snopes" main political "fact-checker" is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that strangely enough, is well known for publishing"fake quotes"and even"full fledged hoaxes.

While at Inquisitr, the future "fact-checker""consistently displayed clear"partisanship to liberalism.

She described herself as "openly left-leaning" and a liberal. She called the"Tea Party "teahadists." She called Bill Clinton "one of our greatest" presidents". The Bill that was accused of rape like a mantra and got impeached? She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham"s comparison of voting to sex because they "fear female agency."

She one time wrote: "Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth, or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty." (An easy fact-check would demonstrate that food stamp fraud really does occur in real life and costs taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.)

Lacapria also accused the Bush administration of being "at least guilty of criminal negligience" in the September 11 attacks. The future "fact-checker" presented no evidence to support her claim.

After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined"Snopes, where she"often goes to the defense for other liberals.

She wrote a "fact check" article about Jimmy Carter"s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. that appeared more like an opinion column"debating against Donald Trump"s proposed ban on Muslims.

Lacapria in yet another "fact check" article argued Hillary Clinton hadn"t included Benghazi at all in her bs "we didn"t lose a single person in Libya" gaffe. Lacapria pushed that Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya, but not the 2012 Benghazi attack, yet she gave little factual evidence to support the claim.

After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria pushed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with a real life active voter registration status did not mean he was actually a Democrat. What?

Her "fact check" said that he might "have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered." Really?

Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as "rumors." Think about it Con. We know it's a fact. We know it is. They admitted it.

In that "fact check" article, Lacapria argued that "Facebook Trending"s blacklisting of "junk topics" was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network"s crackdown on fake news sites." The opinionated article was so named "The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You."

Lacapria also gave defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she said, "Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details."

One of the "inaccurate details' given by Lacapria was, "The cost of men"s suits worn by fellow politicians didn"t appear in the article for contrast." She also said that the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,000 jacket, which talked about "raising wages and reducing inequality," wasn"t really about income inequality.

http://www.snopes.com...

http://www.frontpagemag.com...

http://mynewsla.com...

https://heatst.com...

http://thepekoegroup.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Con

First, the pictures of the ring versus the spelling of Allah are vastly different.



Clear
Clear
Clear
All your websites seem to lack credibility. "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out" [2] shows the obvious bias of the frontpagemag website. All these weird websites nobody has ever heard of. I've read through the page about ten times, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't say what it says it says. Okay, so Sadri was released, but I don't see the website linking Obama with Sabri's release. In fact, it took me about ten times reading the arcticle through to even realize that Sadri was released because the article was so badly written.

Then, who cares about what the person did before coming to snopes.com. Many people have different internet personalities. Finally, this is quite exhausting defending every single point you make. It takes little time to copy and paste a few links, and a lot of time and energy to verify them. Quite fraknly this is not any fun for me. Thanks for the debate.


2. http://www.frontpagemag.com...
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"I've read through the page about ten times, it doesn't make sense, it doesn't say what it says it says."

Con is speaking in riddles and may think of himself as some type of sphynx rather than a human in a debate.

Con:
"Then, who cares about what the person did before coming to snopes.com. Many people have different internet personalities."

Because liberal or conservative bias doesn't just magically disappear.

Con:
"Finally, this is quite exhausting defending every single point you make. It takes little time to copy and paste a few links, and a lot of time and energy to verify them. Quite fraknly this is not any fun for me."

This is proof that I made good points and presented tough arguments. If it didn't exhaust Con, then we might could say that I did not present a powerful defense of my argument, but nevertheless, Con is exhausted and feels defeated because...he is. Con knows I am right. Con knows they are a liberal propoganda machine. It was not fun for Con because Con is a liberal.

Vote Pro.

http://www.bjj.org...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
This is going to take a while to wade through. Expect my response in the next 24-48 hours.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
About the ring, there is too many differences between Obama's ring and the two links you posted. Its too much of a stretch.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
I've skimmed through your response and will begin to process the information now. Just a friendly, heads up.
Posted by brontoraptor 7 months ago
brontoraptor
What better way to show they are a liberal machine than to show they protect liberal politicians
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
Seems your entire argument hinges on Obama's ring. Still sifting through.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
This is going to take a while to wade through. This Barrack Obama's ring subject is almost entirely new to me.
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
Getting around to reading your post now. Scarily your first part of your post makes sense.

"Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 6 headed cow someone emailed you isn't a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Monster energy drink's logo is really satanic. Snopes.com is okay for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don't count on them being "fair and balanced" when it comes to anything political or religious."
Posted by Stupidape 7 months ago
Stupidape
Brontoraptor does apparently.

"Con used snopes.com as a source, but we all know that snopes got snoped long ago. They are a liberal couple who look like they could use some baking soda on that tooth brush.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org......

I investigated more into snopes when they said that Obama's ring was not a shahada ring when I have met him in person and seen it. Having been raised as a Muslim, it's a Shahada ring. Snopes is a liberal agenda machine. " Brontoraptor
Posted by Amedexyius 7 months ago
Amedexyius
Snopes.com is an internet tabloid that likes spreading rumours about anyone politically famous.
Posted by SM29 7 months ago
SM29
Who's going the claim otherwise? Barbara and Dave Mikkelson run about as objective a website as you'll find anywhere, especially relative to the subject matter. Anyone who's ever spent an hour actually on the site knows they keep it objective.
No votes have been placed for this debate.