The Instigator
Dogtonne
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
minddrag
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias

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 3 votes the winner is...
minddrag
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 442 times Debate No: 86195
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Dogtonne

Pro

I believe Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias. With pages like "trigender" "cis" and so on, that have an extreme amount of argument for each term being reasonable, without many real links, makes me believe Wikipedia has an extreme amount of liberals on it. It was even founded by someone who is probably liberal, as he is an atheist, and his son is agnostic. This is coming from an atheist. My political party is somewhere in between liberal and conservative, so I believe there needs to be more actual evidence for information on wikipedia and there needs to be a balance between political extremes.
minddrag

Con

Hello Dogtonne, my name is minddrag and thank you for posing this interesting and worthy debate. The resolution as I understand it is that Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias. Assuming that Wikipedia and liberal are all defined how I assum, and they rightfully should be defined, then with further ado (because we can all agree we've had too much ado) I will begin my side of the debate.

My main point (and I will start off with only 1 rebuttal and one point for the beginning) is that Wikipedia cannot be an extreme liberal bias because it is written by thousands of people, each with different political and moral views. How if Wikipedia is written by people with conservative, communist, socialist and liberal views can you say that it is just one belief? This is absolutely absurd.

To rebut my opponents point I would like to point out that those pages, concerning gender and sexuality are mostly pro liberal topics and that it would be extremely likely that those pages were looked at and edited more by people who have a liberal bias then any other. If you looked at a pro conservative issue, I'm sure that you will find some pro conservative views.

Lastly, even though the founder of Wikipedia, easily arguable as a liberal founded Wikipedia, he did not fully write all, or even close to the 5 million 75 thousand articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think the founders bias even matters in this argument. Unless you mean to say that the founder handpicked all of the writers editors and employees on Wikipedia and made sure they were all liberal who had an extreme liberal view.

It is for these reasons that I believe that this resolution BIRT Wikipedia has an extreme Liberal bias, must and will fall. Thank you and I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Dogtonne

Pro

Dogtonne forfeited this round.
minddrag

Con

Very convincing argument my fine man!
Debate Round No. 2
Dogtonne

Pro

Yeah, that is reasonable, and I know that the founder is a liberal.
(Sorry about the second forfeited round, I wasn't on)
As well as this, I am also saying many of the admins are, as the founder likely handpicked the beginning admins and down the trail it ended up majorly liberal. Also keep in mind many people on the internet are young and liberal, as many older generational people do not frequent the internet other than maybe shopping, keeping the demographics of many sites liberal.
minddrag

Con

The forfeit is fine with me. ALthough the number of people on the Internet are significantly liberal, that does not mean that all of Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I vote on the issue of the burden of proof.

Pro's arguments are all bare assertions. The assertion that there are articles in Wikipedia that don't adhere to conservatism doesn't necessarily entail that Wikipedia has an "extreme liberal bias." It's a non-sequitur. Also, Pro doesn't adequately show that Wikipedia having articles about them indicates extreme liberalism.

Con's argument refutes Pro's argument and upholds their case: Con argues that Wikipedia as a whole cannot be "biased," because people from all over the world, with different political views, edit Wikipedia articles. The "admins" aren't the sole ones editing Wikipedia articles. This is compelling because Wikipedia comprises of thousands of people, who aren't all biased. Pro's response -- that Pro is talking about the admins -- fail because of that.

Pro has the burden to prove the resolution as true, and fails at that. I vote Con.
Posted by mememachine 1 year ago
mememachine
you should never use wikipedia as an official source anyway, read the introduction for an understanding on the topic, but writing papers and citing wikipedia will get you necked
Posted by Mhykiel 1 year ago
Mhykiel
And a lot of athiest sophistry. I stopped donating because of it. I seen a pages just devolve.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
DogtonneminddragTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
DogtonneminddragTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
DogtonneminddragTied
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: RFD in comments.