fox news should be taken off air
Debate Rounds (2)
Let me first point out that this debate is not very well structured. You give no definitions or supply rules for what this debate is meant to be, which makes it more confusing and less likely to be debated. I picked it up because I am trying to experience all that Debate.org has to offer.
For the interests of this debate, you should know that I tend to lean liberal although I try to stay out of political issues. I don’t watch Fox News or any major cable news channel regularly but I am familiar with some of the agendas they support.
Now let’s break down your argument piece by piece.
1. “They’re rape apologists, racists, liars, and they let their republican views influence nearly everything. Fox news is a despicable show.”
This is a statement of your belief. While I appreciate your belief, you don’t offer any specific facts or instances to prove that Fox News is what you say they are – rape apologists, racists, liars, and misconstruers of fact. If you believe that Fox News does these things, that’s fine. However, I can’t have an intelligent debate with you if you don’t provide me with something to base those beliefs on. For instance, I could say that MSNBC is a channel that employs baby killers, homosexuals, job killers, hippies, communists and that they let their democratic views influence nearly everything and it would mean nothing if I don’t substantiate those beliefs. However, according to a Pew poll run in March 2013, 85% of MSNBC’s programming is dedicated to “opinion” whereas 55% of Fox News’ programming is devoted to “opinion” .
2. “It should be taken off air.”
First off, who would be taking the show off the air? The company that makes more money off of it than CNN, MSNBC, and the evening newscasts of NBC, ABC, and CBS combined?  Probably not. The US government? Even less likely. Even if you hate everything Fox News has to say, they’re opinions are protected by the 1st Amendment and there is no precedent for the US government removing a television show or channel because they express a different viewpoint.
3. “Replaced by a better, less unreliable, news source.”
4. “They are a hteful (sic) group and it shouldn’t go on any longer.”
This goes back to point number one. This is a statement of belief that doesn’t provide any contextual evidence to support it.
I hope I didn’t come off as too condescending. This is an issue that I’d love to discuss more. I look forward to your response.
mark_herron forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Con wins arguments sources and conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.