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.
I watch both regularly, however, I take a block of salt with Fox News. Skeptics may use the argument of the 'liberal media', and perhaps the statistics will show that CNN has more left-leaners, but the difference is that CNN's reporters adhere to the standards of professionalism required in journalism, and Fox News does not. After all, I don't remember CNN trying to tell the world that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Ha!
CNN is the better of the two, but let's be honest: Not one news network is unbiased, except for maybe some small PBS news station.
However, I like CNN more is because of various blubberheads on FOX like O'Reilly. I also tend to agree with democrats more w/ republicans, but that doesn't matter. After the Anonymous escapade, FOX News has lost all credibility.
When something of import is happening I tend to lean toward watching CNN since they interview everyone but the Pope on an issue or breaking news! I prefer PBS to any network news around but they fall short on the video end most times. There I will again seek out CNN for the photos and videos that go along with the story. Fox is always my last choice for anything. To me they sell the National Enquirer or Star type of news...SLEAZY!
I have watched both news networks, but the one that I would say is better is, from what I understand, part of CNN, HNN (Headline News Network). I enjoy flipping to that channel from time to time to just hear the news-I couldn't care less about the opinion of the people behind the desk. They report a story, and move on. That's how it should be.
Is this even a serious question? Of course CNN. Not so much because CNN is so awesome and honest, but because FOX is so BAD. It's obviously conservatively biased, they even stooped so low to try and find every bit of dirt of Obama's personal life during the campaign. Pretty low.
This should be a no brainer. But apparently some Faux watchers are too lost in the sauce to realize what a joke it is.
It's like an SNL parody, Hannity and Colmes? Seriously? They let Colmes, the "liberal" talk for all of 5 seconds, then Hannity and whichever ultra-conservative guest laughs at him for the next ten minutes.
Here's faux giving two sides of an issue.
"So is Barrack Osama a terrorist? Or just a terrorist sympathizer?"
See? Two sides, they totally let the viewer decide...
They're both clearly bias, but Fox News takes biasm a bit too far. I mean i've seen Bill O'reilly start screaming at some kid who last his dad in 9/11 because he didn't agree with the Iraq war. He kept telling him that his father was going to hate him from heaven, and all this terrible stuff. At least maintain some professionalism as opposed to shouting at this kid about his dead father.
they both suck because they put too much political crap in it. the news needs to be facts rather than what everyone at the news station wants to happen.
Sean Hannity is openly biased. Fox presents news and announces when there is a bias. CNN has shown blatant liberal bias, especially in the last year, but tries to show themselves as unbiased. Even the comment made that CNN never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11 shows this sort of ignorance (although I don't remember that ever being the issue with Iraq, and I'm not sure I even believe that). CNN has never reported that Saddam had a standing bounty on anyone who killed an American. They also never reported the large amounts of yellowcake we discovered in Iraq. So i guess I agree :)
"Even the comment made that CNN never said that Iraq was involved in 9/11 shows this sort of ignorance"
I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean to say I am ignorant because I know now and knew then that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? I don't know what you are getting at, I said Fox News tried to report some kind of connection between Iraq and 9/11. Which is false. Because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
"They also never reported the large amounts of yellowcake we discovered in Iraq."
I stand corrected. So then Iraq was making WMDs? Hmmm that's weird. Isn't that why we went to war, and why Congress voted to authorize the war (including 83 democrats). What I was referring to is that somehow the CNN media has convinced people that we went to Iraq to catch Osama bin Laden, and that this war was "illegal" or "misrepresented" This is actually what the bill passed said:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
There is no evidence of that. Furthermore, that is not why we went to war (that's just how it was sold to the public to feed off of peoples' fear from 9/11). Actually, had the U.S. waited for the UN inspectors to finish their job, we all would have found out that, whaddya know, there were NO WMDs in Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.S. kicked the UN inspectors out because they were so obsessed with invading Iraq.
"why Congress voted to authorize the war (including 83 democrats)."
Those damn spineless democrats in Congress were so scared of being called unpatriotic by the republicans that they basically signed away their constitutional rights, thereby handing the executive a blank check. (This is off point, but I find it strange that conservatives hate government so much that they are willing to give the president as much power as he wants...)
I appreciate that you cite the bill. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world, many of the 'reasons for going to war' cited in the bill are and were wrong, and a lot of people knew it. I am not saying that Fox News was necessarily wrong to report what the white house told them to report, except that journalism involves something more than that. Fox News should have paid attention to the community of very intelligent people who kept trying to say that there is no justification for going to Iraq, instead of trying to get people all excited about a 'yee-haw cowboy war, man'.
To get back on track, what I was alluding to previously is the fact that Fox News tried to make its own connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda specifically. A link which did not exist, or if it did, there was no evidence for it (which would therefore put that kind of speculation in the same category as speculation about the CIA flying planes into the world trade center, you know what I am saying?).
Finally, I wouldn't cite mediaresearch dot org if I were you. That's about the most partisan, biased site out there. That's like me trying to cite DailyKos and expecting you to buy my argument.
Sigh. I guess what I was trying to say is, why did the Pew research center find that FNC viewers were significantly more likely to believe there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein than viewers of any other news network? Not because it is/was the truth, because it isn't/wasn't.
Also, what about the 'liberal media' claim? According to......
Bill Kristol, to the New Yorker, "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
Rush Limbaugh: "There's been a massive change in media in this country over the last fifteen years. Now it's 2002 and the traditional liberal media monopoly doesn't exist anymore."
Saddam didn't possess WMD's, he just claimed he did to intimidate Iran, as tensions were high back then. The Us then acted on this "shoddy knowledge" and then went to war with Saddam. There were no WMD's at all.
Fox News has fair reporting. Mainly cause, they report everything.
They also have pundits. People who make editorial comments on issues. Fox News separates their reporting from their punditry. Plus, according the Project for Excellence in Journalism, Fox News provides both sides of the arguments at the most equal rate.
CNN i will admit has good reporting, but the problem is that they have a problem with keeping their reporters from making some pundit remarks on issues. They used to focus so much on bombings in Iraq, and would only report on casualties when they were up, but now that they're down, you don't hear so much about the casualty rate anymore. Now, the only time they mention casualties is when they mention the total since we first entered the Middle East.
Not to mention on how everyone on CNN decided to call Bill O'Reilly a racist when he was talking about how most blacks aren't the blacks you see in Rap videos (he was trying to say that Blacks are portrayed violently in the entertainment field, but most aren't violent, thuggish people). and they never even apologized...
I don't agree with Sean Hannity, and i only agree with O'Reilly about 50% of the time, but Fox has people like Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Kiersten Powers, Bill Shulz, Mark Lamont Hill and many many more Liberal commentators that provide the other side.
They say they let the viewers decide. But they present biased information, which the viewer then believes is unbiased. As I said before, even if CNN has more lefties, they adhere to standards expected in journalism. Fox News relies on Sean Hannity to spread lies. Even during their regular 'news' programs, the republican lens is so evident that it is almost painful.
Well, one would be the 2006 discovery of Saddam Hussein's old dried up dead WMDs from the late 80s/early 90s. Hannity of course tried to say 'I told you so', pushing the idea that the US had justification for invading Iraq after all, and spreading the lie that these 500 some WMDs were exactly the ones Bush, Cheney and Co. got all worked up about in 2003. Hannity of course forgot to mention the crucial detail about the nature of these weapons. While some might not think that is a lie, it's pretty damn far from the truth.
It was still usable, and although it wasn't the WMDs the average American can comprehend (retarded people like the term Nuclear way more than Chemical... something about chemical having to do with chemistry, which i admit, is a hard subject).
But i guess people also didn't realize that WMDs wasn't the ONLY reason we went into Iraq.
"But i guess people also didn't realize that WMDs wasn't the ONLY reason we went into Iraq."
You're right. It was only one of many. The rest include:
1. Oil
2. Yee-haw payback yippidy gawn get that thar dude back fer tryina keeill ma daddy.... lasso 'im on up ya Dickie!
3. Oil
4. A 2004 re-election strategy ...something about the 'rally round yer leader effect' having to do with psychology, which i admit, is a hard subject (for people who are incapable of nuanced, complex thought, anyway))
5. America is losing its position as the only superpower, so instead of participating constructively in the global community, it's better to invade a sovereign country that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, topple its leader WHO WAS OUR ALLY IN THE WAR ON TERROR, and have a military cockfight.
But i guess people also didn't realize that THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ.
1. Oil? OPEC provides oil as a whole, and we surely aren't getting free or even cheap oil from Iraq...
2. Saddam not only tried to kill Bush senior, he also violated a shitload of UN Resolutions along with being a fuckin' genocidal maniac.
3. yawn
4. Psychology is actually my field (thanks for bringing it up). We were already at war. Rally round your president wasn't effective because of Iraq, it was effective because of the war on terror.
5. the whole superpower concept has little or nothing to do with taking out a mass murderer like Saddam Hussein. The fact is, his time was up. Dictators often reach their limit, and can be taken out in one of two ways (CIA or Military). We, which i disagree with, chose military. Although, one good thing about it is ground troops is necessary for reconstruction. so, maybe it was the wiser choice. Who knows, time will tell.
Saddam was not our ally anymore... he didn't like Osama, yes, but he even let al-Qaeda set up in his country. you know, the infamous al-Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi.
and the hidden 6. you got it wrong, people actually got pissed because the shiny thing known as LOL NUCLEAR WEAPONS wasn't there. But Chemical WMDs were there, enough to take out a few more cities actually. and hell, all the means FOR MAKING a nuclear missile was actually there. Saddam even admitted that he was going to restart his nuclear program (despite the fact he wasn't allowed to, the smug bastard).
Oil? OPEC provides oil as a whole, and we surely aren't getting free or even cheap oil from Iraq...
OPEC controls oil. Which means the US is dependent on them. Dick Cheney (hello?? CEO of Halliburton???) has always wanted to put his grubby hands on Iraq's oil supply. He just thought it would be easier than this, that's all.
Saddam not only tried to kill Bush senior, he also violated a shitload of UN Resolutions along with being a fuckin' genocidal maniac.
Genocidal maniac? Please don't tell me you are talking about the Kurds. Good God, don't you know anything? Don't you know that it was the United States that allowed him to do it in the first place???
. Psychology is actually my field (thanks for bringing it up). We were already at war. Rally round your president wasn't effective because of Iraq, it was effective because of the war on terror.
So why did the United States invade Iraq? Why did Bush/Cheney/Rove and all those other idiots lie to the American public about Iraq? You say psychology is your field and you don't know this basic concept? Of course Iraq was a reelection strategy. Have you actually seen the data on this? Come on.
the whole superpower concept has little or nothing to do with taking out a mass murderer like Saddam Hussein. The fact is, his time was up
You shouldn't talk about things you know absolutely nothing about. Read about the Cold War, then read about the period after the Cold War, then read about how the world has changed since the end of the Cold War. Iraq had quite a bit to do with the superpower concept. Too bad the results were opposite of those intended.
Saddam was not our ally anymore... he didn't like Osama, yes, but he even let al-Qaeda set up in his country. you know, the infamous al-Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi.
Go double-check your history. Ask yourself when al-Zarqawi joined al-Qaeda in Iraq. Then connect the dots.
But Chemical WMDs were there, enough to take out a few more cities actually
When? Were these weapons there at the time of the invasion of 2003? Or were they:
A) from the period when everyone knew Saddam had them (80s-90s), or,
B) new weapons in response to an unjustified invasion from the U.S. in 2003?
You shouldn't need a multiple choice question. There is not one piece of evidence that suggests these WMDs existed as a threat prior to 2003. In fact, the evidence contradicts this. I don't need to give you a source because all you have to do is read a book, google it, read a scholarly journal, whatever. Just stay away from Fox News.
Saddam gassed cities within his own country. Would take out civilians just because of their religion... the US didn't support it, but at the time that you must be talking about, it wasn't their main concern. But, since Saddam is more of a problem, it ties in better.... just like our reasons for fighting Hitler.
you actually asked why US invaded Iraq (as if the support of a president was the only reason). maybe it's all of the other fuckin' reasons i put up? do you have split personality or something? The Iraq invasion was not a political move... hell, the Civil War was more of a political move than the war in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein has no threat to OUR super power... it's actually pretty pathetic that you think history would say otherwise... Saddam Hussein was basically begging for his death. It would have only been a step up if he had sent us all info on his nuclear program (so we could have found the Uranium faster...)
"al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before we invaded... fact."
CAN YOU BACK THAT STATEMENT UP? WITH REPUTABLE SOURCES?
Saddam gassed cities within his own country. Would take out civilians just because of their religion... the US didn't support it, but at the time that you must be talking about, it wasn't their main concern
"CNN found that intervention is often weighed against political and economic costs.
Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports.
According to Peter Galbraith, then an idealistic Senate staffer determined to stop Hussein from committing genocide, the Reagan administration "got carried away with their own propaganda. They began to believe that Saddam Hussein could be a reliable partner."
WASN'T THEIR 'MAIN CONCERN'? THEN SUDDENLY IT BECAME THEIR MAIN CONCERN IN 2000 AND FUCKING 3???
maybe it's all of the other fuckin' reasons i put up?
YOUR REASONS ARE FUCKIN' WRONG
Saddam Hussein has no threat to OUR super power... it's actually pretty pathetic that you think history would say otherwise
DID I SAY SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT TO OUR SUPER POWER?? NO. I DID NOT. WHAT I SAID WAS, AND I WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN: DON'T TALK ABOUT SHIT YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT. SADDAM HUSSEIN ONLY REPRESENTED A CHANCE FOR THE U.S. TO REASSERT ITS GLOBAL POSITION.
Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace and tolerance, true. But people who lie to themselves and lie to others for the purpose of propagating things that are not true do not deserve this tolerance.
so you decide to hate on queers just because you don't like me? awwww.
anyway, i already said it wasn't something that they wanted to get into at the time because they were using Saddam to help fight Iran. The USA is a puppet master. Now we took him out because he was only a problem for us and had it coming for a long time. Life isn't linear you know, there isn't just a simple answer to everything. if you can't handle that, go to Disney.com.
We showed the world what were capable of by dropping the bomb onto Hiroshima. Taking out evil dictators is what the world has agreed to for a very long time. if anything, Saddam's death is as regular as clockwork. hell, if anything, we tried to show our humbleness by giving Saddam to the people to decide. If we really wanted to show what a super power we were, we would have personally torn him limb from limb at the next UN conference.
as for mister al-Zarqawi, it says it right here that he's been in Iraq since at least 2001 (two years before we went into Iraq).
Ouch. Poor show. I tended to agree with your overall position (the war being about oil, etc, etc), but the moment you posted this argument you automatically lost the debate.