The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,916 times Debate No: 58772
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




rush limbaugh listeners are objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

"Didiots-Limbaugh's Legion of Fans
Now, am I saying that dittoheads are ignoramuses? No. I don't need to. Listen to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania:

We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed.

What a surprise, huh? Limbaugh listeners thought they were the best informed, and yet were the least informed.

How is such a thing even measured? Well, like all the other people studied, talk radio listeners were asked questions of "objective fact" such as: "Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc. "are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare.

But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon "pseudo-certainty." I call it "being a [i][color=#ff0000]flooping[/color][/i] moron."


Thanks for the opportunity to debate whether conservatives are less informed. By less informed I am inclined to believe you mean that they are not as entrenched with beliefs associated with the liberal education system and the media. I did research Kathleen Hall Jamieson and found that she is definitely very far to the left in her opinions and associations so for her to say something about Rush Limbaugh holds no more truth then Rush commenting on her would. I would also highly question the validity of her poll, and what criteria they used when selecting the participants. Who actually takes a poll like this seriously? By Rush Limbaugh listeners I assume you would include Tea Party folks in your criticism so I will provide a link to a study that found Tea Party types to have better cognitive skills then their idealistic liberal counterparts.

I will not resort to name calling, as you have, unless further provoked by the insulting nature of your far left assesment. By the way the study was conducted at Yale, where Kathleen Hall Jamieson would never get a job I bet.
Debate Round No. 1


con merely speculates that the survey was too bias. but, this may not be true. and when we look at the example given, it is based on objective fact. facts do not have a liberal bias.
how do you respond to that looking at it specifially instead of vague as you did?

also, i'm not even making this a conservative versus liberal issue, so i'm not sure why you bring that into it.

and, i'm not engaging in personal attacks, i just quoted another guy who did.

and even if tea party folks are better educated in general, that doesn't mean they are more informed. we could take what you gave an what i gave, and reconcile them that way.
it would not be surprising to me that people who tend to be older and wealthier tend to be more educated in general.


I believe most polling is slanted by whomever creates the poll, and to quote the results of a poll from a liberal institution that criticizes the level of knowledge of the people on the conservative side would lead any reasonable person to question the validity of the poll. The pollsters are biased, then most likely the poll is too. I have heard the term "less informed" used repeatedly by the intellectual crowd, and to me it only says they feel their information is the only information that is believable. Are people truly less informed only because they believe something different then the majority? Not in my eyes, I believe the majority is usually wrong, as it is an endless cycle in human time. The point of the Yale study was ability to comprehend science, a measure of intelligence. Information is only as good as the folks that give it to you, and with most academic institutions being controlled by liberals and borderline communists it is no surprise that the younger crowd that drinks the Kool aid they serve would believe that they are smarter, or "more informed" I guess would be the PC term. Too often people just blindly believe what they are told by "educators".
Debate Round No. 2


ultimately i don't think con has given much except vague commentary on what the survey could have been based on.

neither of us have gotten into the speciics of the survey, so neither of us are really that equipped to talk in depth abut it. but wit hthat said, we did see one speciic example of an objective fact that the limbaugh supporters got wrong. con did not really respond to that. if it's exemplative of the rest of the survey, it shows that something is awry with limbaugh listners

the other stuff is a side line to the debate but will respond. most IQ tests put iberals slightly ahead of conservatives. but that is only slightly, and doesn't mean much. so your point about scientific understadning as an indicator of intlligence is an outlier. and, the abiity to interpret scientific data is influenced by your past education. again, the education points, and the older and wealthir points.
it would be too much to htink just because they might slightly be able to interpret science better that we should listen to them more. mainly, it is only a slight difference. second, they are more extreme on the political spectrum and in my personal experience, which doen't mean much, neither side of a political ideology is really all that informed, it's more like they have a lot of stuff that backs them up, at best.

i don't know what to say about who's more informed, but if the above study indactes anything, it's that limbaugh listeners are less informed. it's not even a liberal v conservative issue as con keeps making it. just limbaugh listeners. con hasn't done enough to specifically address that or the specific example above.


The ability to comprehend science is not about education it is about intelligence, there is a difference between intelligence and education. Pro continues to dodge the issue of the poll being biased as it was created by an obvious Limbaugh hater. Could we possibly expect the results to be unbiased? If Rush Limbaugh made a poll, and it had bad for results for liberals would you trust the results as true? I believe if Rush took a poll of liberals then they would claim to be the most informed, objectively of course, and Rush would find they weren't, hardly an unexpected result. As far as the objectivity of information goes, it pretty much stops at the calculator, 1+1=2, objective fact, now you have been objectively informed. The health care debacle known as the ACA or Obamacare or whatever else it is called, is a politically motivated idea and depending on where the information comes from and who is hearing it, determines whether the information is objective or not.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Hanspete 7 years ago
I am a well informed RUSH LIMBAUGH listener. We happen to be a very well informed crowd just not to the left wing bias that is.
Posted by barnesec 7 years ago
If you're listening to some idealogue, right or left, you're probably misinformed versus the average joe who's just getting information from random multiple sources. Also, the more ideological you are, the more passionate and emotional you are and therefore more likely to disregard information that contradicts your own views and believe conspiracies and far fetched information that reinforces what you believe.
Posted by Preston 7 years ago
ah nvm I see, he said someone else said it but didn't cite the sourse
Posted by Preston 7 years ago
Posted by Preston 7 years ago
"Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc. "are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare.

you realize that's saying that they are right but Medicare covers it right?
Posted by Mike_10-4 7 years ago
Since the reference point of this study is on the "health care reform debate," I need to read and understand our "health care reform" to see who is best informed; Pro or the Rush Limbaugh folks.

Before entering this debate, please give me a little time to read up on Obamacare.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
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: Con, your arguments read like a list of bad ueberconservative beliefs, "liberal universities", "PC = liberal", etc. Con insulted, without ground, the maker of this poll, and Pro. That said, BOP unfulfilled. Study was on *all* talk radio.
Vote Placed by Mray56 7 years ago
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had failed to cite many of his studies he presented. Liberal bias can be a main talking point in debunking this study, however, con based most of his arguments off of personal opinion. Spelling and conduct go towards con with sources because pro didn't post any. Especially the study.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.