The Instigator
Amedexyius
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Voodoo1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: News
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 93006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Amedexyius

Pro

Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Finishing Statements

Before I begin, let me point out my flaw, I have only watched one Stephen Colbert episode and I didn't watch all of it.

By reliable source of information, the criteria is information that with minimal amounts of bias attempts to distribute truth of world, local, and national events for the public to analyze and be informed of.

My argument is that Stephen Colbert is not a reliable source of information to many people in the United States. The majority of the audience that watches his show is young and impressionable [1] who, at their age, don't have the educational capacity to think for themselves and therefore rely on Colbert. I will admit that Stephen Colbert, for the most part, refrains from bias although his show is virtually composed of cynicism and satire on international, national, and domestic politics. Many young persons believe his show to be an actual and reliable source of news although the only product in demographics that his show is producing are a cynical group of people that criticize government and government policies without further argument foundations and nothing more than a base of a satirical shoe they watched on TV.

I also admit that Colbert makes references only an educated few could respond to, but again, the topic of debate is that while many people regard his show as an accurate form of distribution of information and news, I believe it to be an inaccurate source of news.

(Sources for Demographics)
[1] https://courses.commarts.wisc.edu...
Voodoo1

Con

Hi looking forward to debate this subject with you

I don't think Steven Colbert uses facts that are down right wrong unless it's a part of some kind of joke, when that is said I don't think you should watch Steven Colbert if you want a neutral host because he is very colored by his opinions. A good thing about Steven Colbert though is that he can deliver the news to a broader audience because he is making the news more entertaining which I can only see as a good thing since we want to keep people informed, in the video in the bottom he even uses articles to support that what he is saying is not untrue but its true. After he broad the news he then proceed to make some satire off it which I think is one of the reasons he has such a huge audience both online and live. Your claim about it affecting children doesn't really make sense to me since the children could be influenced by many other sources than Steven, like their parents, the Internet etc.

and even if they were led to believe everything even when he makes a joke they could not influence the world anyway since they are too young to vote and therefore change how the country is being run.

video: https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Amedexyius

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate.

Just in case your argument wanders off, the topic of this debate is whether or not Colbert is a reliable source of information. Your statements seemed to point at whether people should watch him or not.

Starting off, when I said 'youths', I didn't refer to children, I meant (Just like my source stated) persons between age 18-25. Stephen Colbert makes satire, and it gives people a good chuckle or two, yes, although, some people considered his program to be an actual and reliable source of information. With your statement that he makes satire, it is a de facto agreement that his show is a comedy and not a news source.

Sometimes, the news isn't supposed to be entertaining. People may get the wrong idea and underestimate the severity or importance of an event because they got the news from him, first. I'm not arguing whether he's funny or not (Personally, I don't think so), my debate is whether he's a reliable source of information.

People are affected and influenced by parent's internet and other things, yes, although my argument doesn't exactly focus on outside variables, it's just on Colbert. My only concern is that people take his show too seriously, which I believe through him, people won't understand the importance of news and world events since he downplays it. I know that he takes pauses to address serious events like the Orlando shooting but I know he's made satire on the Syrian civil war and to anyone that works in or knows about geopolitical studies or the geopolitical arena, it is one of the biggest events on Earth, right now.

I hope I made my argument clear and look forward to my opponent to point out flaws in my argument or any other points he'd like to made.
Voodoo1

Con

Well as shown in the video i think he IS a reliable source of information, since he don't lie about information unless it is something highly unlikely for the sake of a joke like (Donald Trump goes bankrupt because he paid too much for the wall) or something like that, it was only an example. When he is breaking down the news he dont tell lies and he has proves off that by showing us the article or some actual facts that said event happened. To be honest i think the youth is well educated and don't just blindly believe anything especially when it is something so highly unlikely like my example. Furthermore Steven makes it pretty clear when he makes an actual joke by again making it unlikely to happen, and yes it's true it is satire but i think it is more of a mix of news and satire while also having room to explain serious moments like the one in Orlando with sincere respect for the victims. By saying it is not a reliable news source you are saying that colbert cant be trusted when telling us anything new related which i believe is a lie, since he has proof for the stuff he is telling us. And finally i truly believe that the youth can separate news from satire at least most off them can.
Debate Round No. 2
Amedexyius

Pro

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I do believe it is pretty obvious to notice when Colbert is exaggerating jokes or facts, although my argument wasn't him twisting bias on his audience, my argument was his satire will turn people off to understanding the importance of events.

American education quality for the youth, compared to the rest of the developed world is significantly low [1]. As well as having been proven when Americans participate in politics, they let persuasion and entertainment get in the way of allowing them to make fact-based judgments. I won't be calling names, I'll just be leaving it at that.

I haven't directly stated whether Colbert is trustworthy, I stated his 'news' as unreliable. As in, you shouldn't rely on him to be the source of your information for global, local, and national events.

Sources:
[1] https://www.studentsfirst.org...
Voodoo1

Con

Well if you are not a big fan of the regular news shown on TV i think Steven can be a great alternative.

As i said his facts are not wrong and is therefore a reliable source, i actually believe that by making some new more satirical you can reach a broader audience and maybe even get people interested in the events. We also saw that Steven can bring the news to people in a more serious manner under the Orlando events, which make me believe that by reaching a lot off Americans, combined with having his facts straight, combined with him also being serious, Stevens show can lead to more people getting informed about events and maybe even spark their curiosity towards the news story.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
If redoing this, I'd suggest limiting the scope to one aspect of it, and then go deep. Like the audience point for example, a debate specifically about how the audience of a news outlet does or does not define its quality.

And to entertain (no debater used this point, and it does not fall in either direction anyway without analysis)... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Posted by Amedexyius 8 months ago
Amedexyius
@CrocknerDelta This debate is opinionated. I also never mentioned he makes false news, I said he makes too much of a joke of the news for people to actually rely on him. This 'debate' isn't serious, a lot of the debates in DDO aren't serious. It's just opinionated so please, calm yourself.
Posted by Amedexyius 8 months ago
Amedexyius
Good idea--
Posted by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
A baseline reliable source of information would be useful, otherwise the debate might devolve into a battle over semantics.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 8 months ago
Ragnar
AmedexyiusVoodoo1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure where this debate wanted to go. Colbert puts out information, but it's not reliable due to who watches it? Is it not reliable because "the news isn't supposed to be entertaining"? Is he not reliable because he's not funny but works for Comedy Central? Or the inverse of those questions... plus is it reliable because people who would otherwise not site through the news watch it? ... I worry that any vote I could cast for either side, would be based on arguments not contained within this debate (Burden of Proof, K's of the topic, etc.).
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 8 months ago
KroneckerDelta
AmedexyiusVoodoo1Tied
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: This debate was completely void of any rational arguments. Pro at no point actually showed that Colbert every produced false information (and is thus unreliable) and, similarly, Con never pointed this out. Rather they simply argued over superficial and subjective topics only tangentially related to the premise. This "debate" was a complete waste of time for any reader.