Can u convince group who's censored & runs none of the system they r privileged
NBC News under fire for apparently pushing Google to remove conservative sites from ad platform
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
OK, so this first link:- NBC News under fire for apparently pushing Google to remove conservative sites from ad platform Is obviously not a credible source. It is openly Conservative biased. I'd like everybody reading this to just take a short moment to contemplate the character of somebody who makes accusations of liberal bias, but then uses an openly Conservative biased source to try to evidence it:- Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/ And this next claim:- There is quantitative proof academia, Hollywood, and the media actually are run by the left. Is not supported by the source you have linked, which simply says there are more liberals than Conservatives in those respective industries. It says nothing about anybody "running" anything. You made that part up because you're a liar and an insane political extremist dickhead who wouldn't tell the truth if his own life depended on it. Side: Yes
Is not supported by the source you have linked, which simply says there are more liberals than Conservatives in those respective industries. It says nothing about anybody "running" anything. This contradicts your argument about Google being a monopoly via having "40%" of the industry. It also contradicts you debating me months ago, telling me that Conservatives aren't professors because they are too stupid. Per your original logic, the left, who you admit has more people in "the system", runs the very system leftists are telling us is systematically racist. Side: No
Is obviously not a credible source. It is openly Conservative biased. This appears to be an attempt to attack the source rather than the information. You need to make a good faithed attempt to debate the information. https://knewz.com/google-ban-federalist-ad/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/google-bans-zero-hedge-federalist-comments-section/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/ Side: No
This appears to be an attempt to attack the source rather than the information. This appears to be an attempt to ignore that your source is not credible. It has an extreme far right bias and regularly publishes lies. You need to make a good faithed attempt to debate the information. No, you need to understand that when your "information" comes from a confirmed liar with an extreme political bias, it should not be considered true until proven false. Quite the opposite. The long list of links you have provided is a fine example of quantity propaganda. You are hoping to convince people that by posting so many links you can convince them that you must be telling the truth. Unfortunately, not one of those links :- A) Has any credibility as a source of news. B) Backs up the premise in the OP. Side: Yes
|
1
point
& runs none of the system Are you fucking retarded, Bronto? The President of the United States runs "none" of the United States? The President was a Democrat for 8 years prior to Trump. Liberal cities were systematically racist then as they are now. just fucking stupid. It's stupid. The left is having children get sex changes... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ Side: Yes
The President was a Democrat for 8 years Sure buddy. Hitler is a socialist and Trump is a democrat. Up is down, left is right and backwards is forwards. In other news, you're a laughable extreme far right Nazi dickhead who lives by the motto: "no truth is too small to turn upside down". Side: No
Smothering the truth through censorship is a standard communist practice which reeks of the tactics used by the Democrat controlled gutter ( not so) social media. Any political party which has to bribe, coerce or influence part of the media to publish only it's own ideology is a beaten force with nothing to offer the people it purports to represent. Side: No
1
point
Smothering the truth through censorship is a standard communist practice Both the right and the left have smothered their political opposition throughout history. It isn't just the left. It's just that you only ever see the side you are biased towards because you're a troglodyte. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Should Google be forced to fund speech that goes against its policies? Should the White House be forced to fund speech which goes against its policies? Oh look. Nazism. If Google wants to dominate the market and crush its competition, then it needs to provide a platform for all views. Where it needs to draw the line is this wave of fascist propaganda and/or fake news coming from the far American right. Luckily, its policies do seem to be more or less in line with that, but as a general rule, no company should be able to set "policies" for free speech. The "its their platform" argument doesn't wash when they have such a tight grip on the internet. When a small number of people control the means of communication for millions then that's a problem. Side: Yes
1
point
A) No. The White House doesn't (and shouldn't) fund speech. B) Google should provide a platform for all, but it should draw the line exactly where it did, but companies shouldn't draw the line anywhere ??? Next time maybe you should try forming an opinion before posting... Platforms are allowed to block objectionable information, but that is not even the issue here. This is not related to sites showing up in search results, but whether Google ads display on those sites and send them money. (And Google does not have a monopoly on internet ad revenue.) Side: No
but as a general rule, no company should be able to set "policies" for free speech. The "its their platform" argument doesn't wash when they have such a tight grip on the internet. When a small number of people control the means of communication for millions then that's a problem. Flawless logic. Side: No
Should Google be forced to fund speech that goes against its policies? Google, Facebook, and Twitter ban for offenses that go against none of their policies every day. If Google doesn't ban leftists for similar dialogue, they are a publisher and a campaign contributor. Side: Yes
1
point
The red herring syndrome of 'what aboutery' seems to be the main thrust of the site's resident lunatic in this and most other debates. Instead of opening up an opposing discussion under separate cover the lunatic tries to present a counter-argument with nothing more than infantile nonsense such as, ''what about the Nazis you f&&king fascist bas&&&d? Why can't the lunatic see how ridiculous and predictable his boring repetitive drivel is? The creator of all or any topic must endure this lunatic's profanities including his standard ''you're a stinking Nazi pig'' accusation. An argument/counter argument presented with a display of bad temper and 'name calling'' is an obvious attempt to mask it's inherent weakness. IF THE HAT FITS, WEAR IT. Side: No
1
point
The red herring syndrome of 'what aboutery' seems to be the main thrust of the site's resident lunatic in this and most other debates. Pointing out that your accusation applies to both sides is not "whataboutery". It's intellectual honesty. That concept is unfamiliar to you because you're a troglodyte. Side: Yes
1
point
|
