frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Left Wing Sources VS Right Wing Sources.

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • SlanderIsNotDebate1995SlanderIsNotDebate1995 45 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @CYDdharta P.S. I can't use Wikipedia... but YOU can use conservapedia?? Also, NO I DO NOT use Wikipedia. So don't lie! WHERE do you think they COPIED the name from? Stop being so god damn hypocritical. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited March 2018
    @someone234 When did I ever say CNN, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post are unreliable? I never did. It's unfair thought to say you trust Daily Mail but not the Huff Post. That's favoritism. Daily Mail on most bias rating sites is far more right then showed on the picture you have. But again, that picture is from this Sheryl person that seems like a complete hypocrite and not trustworthy as a source. Again, she can NOT be trusted because for her working for a LEFT biased station is bad, but working for a FAR RIGHT company is ok. Except, that's not right, it's hypocrisy. She has biases shown A LOT just with that. She appears praised in CYDdharta's Puedo-science Christian biased source so I'm thinking it's no wonder. If you said right wing is ordered wrong on the pic, why are you relying on it?  @CYDdharta And yes, I know I haven't been here in a while but yes, I can and will report you. I critisized your SOURCES not you. You DIRECTLY criticized me AND acted very condescending. ALSO, you said "Why are you drawn to the completely irrelevant?" as if I typed THIS MUCH and yet it means NOTHING to you!?!? THEN WHY DEBATE ME? WHY ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME? If my words mean NOTHING to you, then STFU and go away! Either respect me or get outta my face! If you can't have RESPECT for opponents, DO NOT debate them! You need to have respect before you debate somebody you disagree with. Either fix your attitude or this debate ends for good and you WILL be reported. And don't lie and try to defend yourself. You know who you are. I only pointed out your sources seem a bit odd, but ALL YOU HAVE TO DO, is find another source, and we can go from there. Period. Also, when you said the thing about China's newspaper, that same info right under is from the SAME website I USED to check biases. THEY THEMSELVES admit that there are problems with that paper and likely you got info from there. What happened to that bias check being unreliable? You have INFO from them yet I can NOT? That's HYPOCRITICAL. BUT, it goes with what you have shown. YOU show that YOU think you are BETTER than me. YOU ARE NOT. This is a debate between two opinions, not right and wrong unless solidly determined, but even then, there will still be differentiating opinions, like it or not. The fact that you are trying to make it seems my arguments as 100% fallacies is . I really don't know why you bothered to debate me if you already had in mind that I MUST be in-superior because of different opinions. You are wasting your time. And you are wasting mine. And, actually, I am going to report you. Really, I am sick of being looked down at by everyone I meet whether online or in real life. Learn a lesson the hard way. And what the reporting does will determine if you see me again. READ my user name. SLANDER is NOT debate. Don't you forget it!

    I'm not sure what to make of this word salad rant, but I do have a couple of observation.

    1) You don't seem to know the meaning of the word "slander"

    2) You are correct, this is a debate site.  Pointing out logic fallacies is pretty common around here.  The best way to get people to stop pointing out your logic fallacies is to quit committing them in the first place.
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta P.S. I can't use Wikipedia... but YOU can use conservapedia?? Also, NO I DO NOT use Wikipedia. So don't lie! WHERE do you think they COPIED the name from? Stop being so god damn hypocritical. 
    My guess is that Conservapedia got their name from the same place Wikipedia and the various encyclopedias got their names; paideia - (in ancient Greece) a system of broad cultural education.


  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -  
    Both biased. Especially far left/right sources. Listen to NPR. Most non biased you’ll get.
    CYDdhartaSlanderIsNotDebate1995
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • @AmericanFurryBoy I know it's slight to the left, but it's like BBC. I think it tries to stay neutral, which I like. 
    AmericanFurryBoy
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    In general, one's political leaning in itself does not necessarily affect the amount of bias they put into their narrative. That said, political positions based on false assumptions have inherently larger bias than those that are not, because the fallacy in those assumptions can be pointed pretty quickly, and for the narrative to survive a bias should exist that offsets those fallacies. But the difference between left and right ideologies isn't as much in the plausibility of assumptions those ideologies are built on, as in the differences in systems of values on which the ideologies are held - as such, if the systematic differences in the degree of bias exist between left-leaning and right-leaning ideologies, then they are probably caused by the bias within the currently existing political movements, rather than in the leanings themselves.

    I do not watch TV when at home, but when I was on vacation in Miami, I watched Fox News and CNN for a while to compare them. Fox News seemed to twist facts in a slightly more obvious way, but in the end both channels exhibited a poor show of journalist integrity, as the reporters twisted others' quotes right after they cited them.

    On the other hand, I find New York Times and WSJ to be pretty trustworthy agencies: while the left- and right-wing bias exists in them respectively, it manifests usually in the commentary they provide and not in representation of facts. The best (or to clarify, the most impartial) news agency I know overall is BBC, as they tend to be more interested in telling raw stories with multiple points of view, as opposed to promoting a certain school of thought.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch