CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Demosthenes9

Reward Points:15
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:11
Debates:1
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.

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.

Yes, this. Also, CNN numbers are on the rise. Look at Reuters though, which has only a 4% rating with 0% pants on fire.

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.

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

2 points

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.

2 points

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.

2 points

The size of a population has literally nothing to do with the intelligence of that group. To use the size of a population as a point of emphasis in your reasoning is flawed and nonsensical. Try again.

Demosthenes9(15) Clarified
2 points

First off, I'd like to point out that you are actually voting for the side of the argument you clearly oppose. So there's that.

But most importantly, those circumstances which you list about the checks and chairs are entirely inappropriate analogies to religious philosophy and belief structure. If you believe in God because you also believe in checking if a chair supports you before you sit in it, then your belief in God is superfluous and whimsical at best.

Your religious principles are not based on anything but your own beliefs. The reason that it is so easy to claim that atheists are more intelligent than Christians is because Christians are typically so closed minded to education. There are true believers and then there are persons who have been indoctrinated since birth and literally are not intelligent enough to see beyond their indoctrination. I'm sorry to say that it appears that you fall into the latter category. You have not come by your beliefs yourself, you are just spouting things that have been told to you your entire life. You really should try to suspend your indoctrinated beliefs for a few weeks and do some legitimate research, both internally and externally, and try to find faith that way. Maybe you will find absolute faith, but maybe you will not. Unfortunately most persons are not intelligent enough to see beyond those precepts forced upon them at birth and through their upbringing.

That last statement is the entire reason behind religious wars and fanaticism. It's also the reason I believe atheists, as a whole, are more intelligent than Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any other religious beliefs that were forced upon others since birth. The actual intelligent Christians/Muslims/Jews/Etc. are the ones who searched and found religion on their own. The majority of atheists were born into religious cultures, as most persons in the world are, and were smart enough to see religion objectively and to take actual stock in it instead of blindly believing what their parents, friends, or community told them to believe.

Finally, you don't even seem to have a grasp on Christianity yourself. The Old Testament preaches fear in God. That belief is mostly centered in Jewish ideology. Most theists, including nearly all Christian sects, do not proscribe to a fear of God, but instead they preach a love of God. Secondly, you stated that a previous poster did not capitalize the word "God" because they did not see God as a person. Well, that statement just makes you seem like a huge idiot. God is not a person. No religion in the world sees God as a person. God, or Jesus Christ, or Allah, or whichever deity you worship, is ALWAYS considered a higher power above that of a common man. The fact that you imbue the God you believe in with human characteristics in itself proves your lack of intelligence. If the only way you can perceive God is as a human being, then I'm sorry, you are so extremely narrow minded that your opinions can hold no weight in this discussion, as this discussion will eventually exist on a level that you simply cannot comprehend. It's ok, it's not your fault that you lack innate intelligence. Most people do lack this quality. But if you are going to try to espouse your beliefs on others, try to do so objectively.

2 points

Japanese were never Communist. Ever. At any point in the country's history. They were an empire, ruled by an emperor. Hirohito was an emperor who was considered divine by his people. The only thing close to socialism or communism they ever displayed was their mandatory military service. But that doesn't make them communists. Where do you get this info?

4 points

Japanese weren't Commies at all. What? It was an empire. There were no socialism practices at all.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here