• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Factchecking the second presidential debate

Captain Adverse said:
No, no, no. no! Don't try that crap.

There are many things that are provable facts. Like how fast it takes unimpeded light to travel certain distance. What my exact age is at any moment in time. Was a bullet fired from a certain gun.

But when it comes to linguistic nuances? Things are not quite as clear. Facts are inarguable, opinions can be argued till doomsday.
Click to expand...

Did someone say something? If yes, then it is a fact that they said that something.

Did someone do something? If yes, then it is a fact that they did do that something.

It's pretty black and white. The only wiggle room is context and that can rather easily be sorted out as well. Me thinks you are trying to fabricate a nonexistent grey area as some kind of a Donald defense mechanism.
 
Captain Adverse said:
You are a Hillary supporter so as long as the media build her up, then of course you are going to agree with whatever makes her look good and her opponent look bad.

But the FACT is, both those items I listed are opinion based.

I can think from what I've seen of Hillary's actions that she was violently aggressive. It does not make it more or less true "factually." It is just an opinion.

You, and "PolitiFact" can opt to disagree and argue why, but that does not make it FACTUALLY truer either.





Your linguistic claim is meaningless. Words do have a meaning with a wide scope of usage. One person can consider having a finger poked repeatedly in their chest to emphasize a point as violent, while another might simply consider it annoying.

I am not taking my "opinions and impressions" as facts. I am stating the reverse, that opinions are being evaluated and the evaluations being presented as "facts."

Thus, from what I've seen of their "factual evaluations" I consider PolitiFact only slightly more reliable than your typical media agency, albeit more reliable than any extremist media agency.

That does not make it's "statistics on truth" an argument ender by any means.
Click to expand...

Good post!

Politifact, and FactCheck are both operated by Progressive operations backed by such well know Progressives foundations as Annenberg, Poynter Institute, Knight, George Soro's Open Society Foundation, and others.

They have been shown to be highly subjective, and their ratings contains significant bias, as you have pointed out.

There are people who will refuse to see these connections and facts as having any meaning. The creators of these sites count on that.

Imagine a fact check operation funded by the Koch Brothers. I bet these same people would have no problem with that. Sarcasm off.
 
Henrin said:
Well, politifact is left wing. :shrug:
Click to expand...

To Cons, everything that is against their world view is "left wing".... its funny how often the truth seems to lean left.

You, sir, have done nothing to refute the poster. He put up evidential matter. Its up to you to either A) produce contrary 3rd party evidence and/or B) produce evidence that his source is not credible. You did neither.

Your argument is weak and his strong. You lose.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
To Cons, everything that is against their world view is "left wing".... its funny how often the truth seems to lean left.

You, sir, have done nothing to refute the poster. He put up evidential matter. Its up to you to either A) produce contrary 3rd party evidence and/or B) produce evidence that his source is not credible. You did neither.

Your argument is weak and his strong. You lose.
Click to expand...

I don't bother to refute biased sources.
 
Henrin said:
I don't bother to refute biased sources.
Click to expand...

...and most of us don't bother to take seriously those who's entire world view is from the voices in their head. You cannot objectively support your position, then you don't have a supportable position.

Come back when you can actually debate. Because you believe something is so, does not make it so.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
No, no, no. no! Don't try that crap.

There are many things that are provable facts. Like how fast it takes unimpeded light to travel certain distance. What my exact age is at any moment in time. Was a bullet fired from a certain gun.

But when it comes to linguistic nuances? Things are not quite as clear. Facts are inarguable, opinions can be argued till doomsday.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that linguistic nuances do not exist, i'm arguing that they have limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom