CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is there any difference in the objectivity shown by Fox News/Breitbart v. CNN/HuffPo?
One of the big issues in America today is the legitimacy of news reporting. I really wanted to see what people believed as to the objectivity of journalism and whether or not there is any trust left for journalistic integrity. So a "yes" vote basically means "Yes, the side that agrees with my opinion is telling the truth and the other side is all fake news." A "no" vote means that "all media coming out of mainstream outlets has become so biased that it can no longer be considered objective."
Not that one side is truly objective, as humans, by and large are not objective - but there has never even been the feeblest attempt at objectivity from Breitbart, and Fox is so bad that those that strictly get their news from Fox have been shown to be more ignorant about current events and world news than those that don't watch news. That's a significant difference.
Neither are truly objective, but comparing CNN to Fox and/or Breitbart is like comparing Obama to Joseph Goebbels. Breitbart is literally an Israeli propaganda operation. It was created in Israel with the specific intent to combat the Huffington's Post's perceived lukewarm attitude to Israel and Israeli politics.
Yes, Fox news has the honesty to admit that No Restriction abortions are supported by the Democrat Party, while the GOP wants 20 week limits (except for extreme cases).
Obviously Fox is more in line with Republican values while most of the other media is in line with Liberal Democrats.
The question is, which ones sticks more to the facts rather than rhetoric.
I say Fox news is much more fact based rather than political correct Liberal biased.
We all listen every single day as the Left wing fake news paints trump as a racist, a nazi, a hater of women, haters of all mexicans, haters of all muslims, etc. etc. etc.
These Leftwing fake news channels constantly demonze him with NO FACTS to back it up. What biased jokes they are!
How long must we waste with their witch hunt for Trump and Russia collusion.
Hillary has much more connection to Russia and Clinton foundation money, with uranium deals, Bill's huge money speaking engagements in Russia, etc.
Do you hear word one about this from Leftwing fake news? NO, those stories are buried.
I hear everyday of the accusations against Trump on Fox news. They are are more fair and balanced.
I'm not sure if you are serious with your comments, but if so, do you see how much you have been affected by this? You say the left wing fake news channels demonize Trump with no facts to back it up and then you immediately talk about Hillary's connection to Russia, Clinton foundation money with uranium deals, etc. but you have no facts to back it up.
It's exactly the sort of hypocritical nonsense I was talking about when I started this topic. For some reason you believe Fox's reports about the Clinton's connections but you won't believe CNN's reports about Trump. It doesn't make sense to me as an objective outsider and I'd really like to try to understand.
You're hitting the nail on the head, there. They truly are both sensationalist, but they play to a different audience.
Hillary is corrupt, and was a terrible candidate, but the nonsense that continuously gets parroted is actually debunked thoroughly. Occasionally, someone from the right will bring up the truth that she corrupted the DNC, but it's usually the uranium ridiculousness that she had no control over. Trump is literally in the midst of the biggest scandal any president has ever been in, including Nixon, and is objectively less effective than any president in my lifetime.
HuffPo and CNN's audience understand checking sources...and fact checking in general. To the average Fox and Breitbart watcher, everything is a liberal conspiracy.
Either you do not watch the news, or you are not listening with all the facts about Clinton's scandals. You will never hear those facts if listening to fake news channels.
I have heard the information about Trump's connection to Russia and most of it is pure conjecture and witch hunts. In case you missed it, the Left hates Trump! They loved Obama and Hillary.
Fox reports on those conjectures, and also reports on when there is no hard evidence to back up the conjecture. After all this investigation, they still have NOTHING worth going after.
They now know that FBI agents were Hillary supporters and against trump. This is why their investigation proved her guilt and then did NOTHING about it.
I'm sorry, but everything you are saying is just a completely subjective one-sided argument.
Here is one of your sentences. "I have heard the information about Trump's connection to Russia and most of it is pure conjecture and witch hunts. In case you missed it, the Left hates Trump! They loved Obama and Hillary."
Without even acknowledging it, you are making my point for me. The media is completely biased. The thing you are failing to understand is that the following sentence, which would come from your mouth if you were liberal and not conservative, is also just as "true."
"I have heard the information about Clinton's connection to Russia and most of it is pure conjecture and witch hunts. In case you missed it, the Right hates Clinton and Obama! They love Trump."
I literally don't see the difference. You are saying that Fox News, FOX NEWS!!!, is telling the truth. Fox has always been egregiously biased. CNN used to be more objective but is now just the Fox News of the left side. I don't understand how you don't see that.
There is a huge difference between the truth and what the media reports and you just don't seem to see it that way and for that I'm sorry for you.
Do yourself a favor, stop getting news from the following sources: Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, ABC, Bretibart, Huffington Post, NBC, CBS, FoxNews
Instead, get news from one of the following: Reuters, AP, BBC, NPR
You will see the huge, huge difference. The only channels broadcasting actual facts are those last four. They don't have political interests in America so they are much less biased. You will hear things from a perspective that you don't seem to be able to comprehend at the moment.
You, my friend, are a victim of the isolationist movement of American politics and American media. For some reason, most Americans seem to think that there are only two sides to each story and that if they agree with one side on a single issue that means that have to agree with that same side on every issue. It's isolationist and it's a horrible, horrible form of governance. It doesn't work. Never has. When one side tries to completely shut out all the other sides instead of working together, it leads to collapse 100% of the time. Every major culture in the history of the world has collapsed when a form of isolationist governance took hold. It's true of Egypt, Rome, Greece, England, France, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, and more recently, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and most recently, Zimbabwe.
I'm pretty far left, and I can't stand Hillary, and am disgusted by Obama. Your rhetoric needs more of a change than your diaper. Both are full of shit.
You only say that Fox News is more in line with facts because they tell you what you want to hear, not what's true. I've done research in the past on American Journalism, and Fox News is by far the most biased out of all of them.
But Right Wingers paint Hillary as a corrupt, crooked person, and we also hear your lovely president refer, quite disrespectfully, to a woman as Pocohantas because he disagrees with her.
Their "Witch Hunt" is digging up some content. At least 3 individuals affiliated with the Administration have either lied to the FBI, or have colluded with the Russians somehow.
Have you ever even listened to CNN? MSNBC?
Not to mention, your president also insulted Ms. May by posting extremely rude and racist videos of "Muslims" attacking each other. They weren't even Muslim!!! They were Dutch!!!! This shows that he's not only a bad person overall, but he's also endorsing a far right neo nazi group, which is probably why American liberals call him a neo nazi.
He groped women repeatddly.
He has driven into your brains that there is going to be a wall to keep mexicans out.
He tried three times to ban muslim countries from having their residents come to the states.
So now do those accusations you listed seem not so arbitrary?
You're still missing the entire point of this debate. Stop being so obtuse. The debate is NOT about which side is more biased, the debate is about whether or not ANY of the major American news outlets are UN-biased. You keep proving my point. YES, CNN and MSNBC ARE EXTREMELY BIASED. You don't have to keep putting up articles proving that. No one is trying to deny that.
I am completely at a loss for what you are going for here. It seems like you are just trolling to me.
It is always absurd to me to think that people can hold up news reports from a media outlet on one side of the political spectrum and yet casually debase and disregard news reports from media outlets on the other side of the political spectrum. The worst part about it is that Trump has made it "cool" to discredit news, so now everything you disagree with can simply be labeled "fake news." To be fair, the media isn't helping themselves out much, there doesn't appear to be any journalistic integrity left, but the public is so easily persuaded by idiotic reports. I just hope this debate finds some argument somewhere that convinces me that members of the public can still view things objectively.
The mainstream media of the right will spin the news with a wink and a nod, and most people won't ever see it because it's only on cable.
The mainstream media of the left will intentionally not cover, undercover, use actors in interviews, or even make up news for the sole sake of character assassinating those on the right. And their news cannot be avoided because eveyone has to see the major outlets to see basic programming. The left's number of outlets well outnumbers the right.
In fairness they both have blatant propaganda sites like CNN and Breitbart, but they are ignored simply by not going to those outlets.
It's impossible to ignore liberal outlets because they are ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc.
And even if you turn your tv off and watch only movies...there's the leftist propaganda anyway despite your effort.
WMDs was the claim of the government and reported by news outlets from both sides. It had nothing to do with "right wing news outlets creating news". Be sure and explain which part you can't grasp.
Constant focus on Islamic violence at the expense of all other forms of violence.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but there's a difference between reporting the government's claims and deliberately creating false news.
So what "false news" do you believe the left wing press has invented without the help of the government you sophist retard? You're trying to create a false objection on the grounds of something which applies to both sides.
Yes it is. By the same logic that she's a war criminal, every single major US government politician of the last 70 years is a war criminal, including Obama, and many of them spectacularly more so than her. Calling Hillary a "war criminal" when the previous president openly lied the country into two completely unnecessary wars is retarded. If you're going to make these type of accusations, then you shouldn't have such whopping double standards in terms of who you make them against.
By the same logic that she's a war criminal, every single major US government politician of the last 70 years is a war criminal, including Obama, and many of them spectacularly more so than her.
All US Presidents and many government politicians of the past 70+ years have committed indictable offenses..
including Obama
Yes. Obama committed many indictable offenses (rather obviously)..
If you're going to make these type of accusations, then you shouldn't have such whopping double standards in terms of who you make them against.
What double standards are your referring to? You are the one applying double standards...cherry picking..
Obama committed some truly horrific offenses and much of it is utterly counterproductive - though he didn't start the drone wars, he clearly owned it. I'm willing to bet it's created more terrorists that it's destroyed - and he's clearly violated the airspace of several independent nations in doing it.
Obama committed some truly horrific offenses and much of it is utterly counterproductive - though he didn't start the drone wars, he clearly owned it. I'm willing to bet it's created more terrorists that it's destroyed - and he's clearly violated the airspace of several independent nations in doing it.
No, it shows that I read the UN Charter as well as other UN documents and apply them universally..
Soldiers are technically held responsible for their actions under this code as well. However, it is made clear that those in Charge (e.g. the Presidents, ect.) are held most responsible by far..
No, it shows that I read the UN Charter as well as other UN documents and apply them universally..
No, it proves the precise opposite, because you are not applying it universally. You are applying it as a form of attack against Hillary Clinton.
And you have never read the UN Charter. Your lies are so transparent and stupid that it really defeats the objective of speaking to you when you clearly do not recognise the stupidity of your own bullshit.
It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people’s grammar were just plain annoying. Now there’s evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS
new evidence from fMRI scans of brains exposed to real-time grammatical errors, has led some scientists to predict that soon we may be able to find a cure for GPS, for many sufferers a debilitating, off-putting, sociopathic syndrome.
Behind all grammar corrections, back-handed compliments, and “it’s-only-a-joke” jibes lies hidden anger. When a Grammar Bully corrects your grammar (especially strangers online), you can rest assured that you are not the cause of his anger. Your word usage was simply the trigger of that anger. The Grammar Bully is in need of companionship, so publicly correcting you sends the homing beacon out to other Grammar Bullies. Grammar Bully is ringing in the friends with whom he can bond over mutual hate of the their/they’re misstep.
When we are angry or stressed, a bonding hormone called oxytocin is released, urging us to form social connections with other humans so as to better our chances for surviving the cause of the stress. A Grammar Bully is feeling insecure in some way, and the insecurity is driving her to gather up friends. Many observers may think the Grammar Bully is about belittling others, but really, the Grammar Bully is just looking to find other Grammar Bullies because she is feeling angry and/or stressed.
Anger can be subconscious and many times it is. We are discouraged from expressing anger when out and about in polite society, so we suppress it. Unfortunately, anger is one of those emotions that bubbles up to the surface. Grammar-correcting behavior is one of suppressed anger’s outlets.
Can't decide a side eh nomenpuss? Whether America is guilty of mass war crimes or to let liberal American leadership off the hook. Looks like you've lost both narratives. The Orwellian doublethink is strong in this one.
No, it proves the precise opposite, because you are not applying it universally. You are applying it as a form of attack against Hillary Clinton
You already attacked Hillary when you stated that the U.S. was guilty of war crimes and the like. Now you suddenly are not applying your hatred for America universally because "America" and its vile leadership in this case is a liberal. Isn't that a hypocritical daisy? Your cognitive dissonance must be raging right about now eh quantum?
You seem to feel, as I do, that both sides are guilty of the same biases and that no news source is fair and balanced, yet you're comments are giving points to the other side of the argument
The claim was made by Trump, who isn't a right wing news outlet.
Osama bin Laden masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
This claim was made by Ben Laden himself and by the U.Sm government, neither of which are right wing news outlets.
Hillary Clinton being a war criminal.
Well, she did lie to the FBI on the matter, destroyed email files by the thousands with hammers, and then Bill met Loretta Lynch in secret...and? It was all reported by left wing news outlets.
Constant focus on Islamic violence at the expense of all other forms of violence
So make me into a clown Nomenclature, and tell us what percentage of Brits are Muslims. Then tell us what percentage of terrorist attacks in Britain are Islamic. I'll wait.
I'm not entirely sure HuffPost is worse than Fox news but both have their sides and agenda's. We can't rely on our news sources anymore with the exception of a few and even then we can't take them at their word 100% of the time nor should we. Ultimately it falls on us to check facts before making opinions.
There was a chart someone posted here a LONG time ago that gave a graph on where multiple news stations/papers stood in terms of politics. Wish I could find it again.
"45 percent of the claims we’ve checked from NBC and MSNBC pundits and on-air personalities have been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. At Fox and Fox News Channel, that same number is now 58 percent. At CNN, it’s 22 percent." source
When the one that lies the least still lies one out of every five times, you know there is a major problem with the trustworthiness of the mainstream media.
