The topic for this debate is; Ron Paul has NOT been treated fairly by the Main Stream Media

freedom12 will be arguing the PRO position and will begin the debate.
nyk537 will be arguing the CON.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

There has been a Technical issue and freedom12 has been granted an extension

Semper

I am honestly almost at a loss as to where to begin with my opponents previous response. This is playing out more like the rantings of a Paul fanatic than the serious discussion of our debate topic. I must reiterate again that we are here to discuss whether or not Ron Paul is being "treated fairly", we are not here to discuss if Ron Paul receives equal amounts of news coverage from the main-stream media. As I outlined earlier, fair treatment goes far beyond equal time provisions, and this is something my opponent seems unable to grasp.

My opponent seems to take issue with using blogs as a source for news coverage. That seems strange to me as I would view any kind of coverage as news coverage. Again, we are not simply discussing coverage from the main-stream media. This is even more puzzling as a simple internet search will lead you to find that more Americans get their news from "alternative news" sites now than they do the main-stream media. Once again, we find something that is more favorable and "fair" to Dr. Paul.

I'd like to draw your attention to the following graph from the New York Times, which shows the results of Google searches for presidential candidates in main-stream media outlets and blogs.




We can see from this chart that there are no less than nine presidential candidates who have received less news coverage than Ron Paul. Among them are Herman Cain, who was at one time a front-runner; Rick Santorum and John Huntsman, who are still running; as well as others. This hardly shows that Ron Paul is being treated unfairly, it shows that he is receiving as much and more coverage than many other candidates and potential candidates. You can also see that the difference in coverage in not that wide outside of the top three.

If you would like to go even farther, we can look at the tone of the media coverage for each candidate as well. The following graph shows the news coverage for the presidential candidates, as well as our current president in terms of positive and negative stories. Let's take a look shall we?




As we can see from this chart, Ron Paul receives positive news coverage 21 percent of the time, which is more than three other candidates, including Newt Gingrich, and President Obama! On the flip side, Ron Paul is tied with Jon Huntsman for the LEAST amount of negative coverage! Remarkable isn't it?

I find it hard to believe that after looking at information like this, one could argue that Ron Paul is not being treated "fairly" by the media. It would seem looking at this information, that Dr. Paul is getting a better shake than many other candidates, and even our current President.

My opponent obviously wishes to ignore this fact and focus on the premise that Ron Paul isn't appearing enough on MSNBC or whichever news outlet they prefer. I can understand their frustration, but I must remind them again that we are not debating that issue, we are debating whether or not he is being treated "fairly".

I am a little taken back by the following comments from my opponent as well, because I thought we would be able to have a civil discussion on this issue.

I hope you bring something actually worthwhile in your next response or I'll simply "call it quits" on this debate and ask the mod's/judges to render a decision based upon your incompetence to actually post anything meaningful.

I am sorry that my opponent feels I am "incompetent" based on my decision to disagree with them, but I suppose that is in their right. I believe I have made a strong case so far that Ron Paul is in fact being treated "fairly" by the media. A case that I would think a Ron Paul supporter would actually be happy to hear. I will end now with a question for my opponent.

#1 - Can you present to us any evidence that Ron Paul is not being treated "fairly" outside of equal time provisions on main-stream media outlets?

I look forward to a response - assuming my opponent still wishes to endure my obvious "incompetence".

LOL....I feel like I'm talking to a car salesman rather than having a "debate". A good salesman never answers any question, but rather changes the subject or answers the question with another question.

To help my opponent out with his confusion, this debate topic is "Ron Paul and the Main Stream Media; Fair Treatment?". That's right, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, not how many Google searches there is for Dr Paul or what "Joe Blow's" blog may say.
Here's the definition from Wikipedia as you seem to be confused!

Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels, which therefore represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter.

You also say-

fair treatment goes far beyond equal time provisions

-to which I agree. I get back to that later.

Before I delve into Dr Paul's treatment by MSM further, I'd like to go back to something my 2nd post addressed. Your "source" in your opening statement(Christian Science Monitor), inaccurately portrayed the events at Moe Joe's Diner. I brought it to my opponent's attention, complete with a video capturing what actually ocurred, yet you failed to address it. Why?

Question #2 Please address the distortion of facts in your quoted piece and article from the CSM that I mentioned in my response to your first post.

Now, back to the actual debating of the subject matter.

I believe you have CONCEDED the MSM has not offered Dr Paul equal time in the debates. So, with that point out of the way, we'll move on to what my opponent's perception of "fairly" is.

Answer to question #1-

Since most airtime on the big 3 cable MSM stations is not actually considered news, just opinion programming, I believe that's where the main problem lies. You see, most people have a hard time differentiating between what's actually news and what's opinion. This isn't really their fault, but more a problem with the big cable networks. They have made news more about entertainment in an effort to get better ratings/more viewers. The bottom line for the huge corporations is always money. And how do they generate it? Money from ads. The amount of money they charge for advertising is determined by ratings.So the line between actual news reporting and opinion programming is blurred in almost all cases.

Where does this leave us? We are left with "reporters" like Dan Bash, Gloria Borger, and a whole slew of others, interjecting their opinions, in non-opinion news progamming. Take the guy in my John Stewart clip shown above, saying "Bring back the Sarah Palin footage, but you can hold the Ron Paul stuff" and then laughing about it.

What voting block has shown they are most likely to show up on election day? Older folks.

Which age group trusts what they see on TV news the most? Older folks.

Why? Because news when they grew up was news, not opinion.

Would you like me to provide a couple hundred Youtube clips of such behavior such as Ms Bash, Ms Borger, the other CNN guy I refer to above or footage from the other big MSM outlet's? Would you like AP articles about the 2012 race for the White House that don't even mention Dr Paul's name,let alone speak derogatory about him? How much of the overwhelming mounds of evidence do you wish to see?


Are there members of the MSM that do portray Dr Paul fairly? Sure, but they are few and far between. Those folks make up a small minority of the MSM.

Question #1, answered!!!



As for my opponent's Google search stats chart, well it actually doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether Dr Paul is treated fairly by MSM.

It's probably just lot's of us, how did you put it, "Paul fanatics" searching for info on Dr Paul. You see us "Paul fanatics", have nothing better to do than "Googling" Ron Paul and flooding O'Reilly's polls for fun.

I'll be using my extension due to some extra hours at work.

My opponent continues to discuss times of news coverage after I specifically asked for something different.

My opponent is just making up things now. In my previous post, I didn't use any references to "times".

My opponent failed to even address question #2 that was posed.

My opponent continues to avoid understanding what MSM is, even after I provided him with the definition.

My opponent thinks you must answer the same question from a reporter multiple times in the same interview.

My opponent has not even attempted to deal with the actual subject matter of this debate.






Now, I will attempt to continue this the discussion by actually getting back to the debate.

#1 - Can you present to us any evidence that Ron Paul is not being treated "fairly" outside of equal time provisions on main-stream media outlets?

My opponents first question.

My response since he seems to have not read it/skipped over it.




Answer to question #1-

Since most airtime on the big 3 cable MSM stations is not actually considered news, just opinion programming, I believe that's where the main problem lies. You see, most people have a hard time differentiating between what's actually news and what's opinion. This isn't really their fault, but more a problem with the big cable networks. They have made news more about entertainment in an effort to get better ratings/more viewers. The bottom line for the huge corporations is always money. And how do they generate it? Money from ads. The amount of money they charge for advertising is determined by ratings.So the line between actual news reporting and opinion programming is blurred in almost all cases.

Where does this leave us? We are left with "reporters" like Dan Bash, Gloria Borger, and a whole slew of others, interjecting their opinions, in non-opinion news progamming. Take the guy in my John Stewart clip shown above, saying "Bring back the Sarah Palin footage, but you can hold the Ron Paul stuff" and then laughing about it.

What voting block has shown they are most likely to show up on election day? Older folks.

Which age group trusts what they see on TV news the most? Older folks.

Why? Because news when they grew up was news, not opinion.

Would you like me to provide a couple hundred Youtube clips of such behavior such as Ms Bash, Ms Borger, the other CNN guy I refer to above or footage from the other big MSM outlet's? Would you like AP articles about the 2012 race for the White House that don't even mention Dr Paul's name,let alone speak derogatory about him? How much of the overwhelming mounds of evidence do you wish to see?


Are there members of the MSM that do portray Dr Paul fairly? Sure, but they are few and far between. Those folks make up a small minority of the MSM.

Question #1, answered!!!


Above-Reposted for my opponent.

It appears you have adopted CNN's style to this attempt to debate on your part?

Example: You "quote" a sentence from my previous post,"Are there members of the MSM that do portray Dr Paul fairly? Sure", but take it out of context. What I actually posted:

Are there members of the MSM that do portray Dr Paul fairly? Sure, but they are few and far between. Those folks make up a small minority of the MSM.

You also make some claim that you personally" know for a fact, that Dr Paul has turned down Limbaugh,Hannity, and Mark aka "the whiner" Levin on numerous occasions.

Has Dr Paul appeared on these shows? Yes

Does he have a daily schedule of interviews, campaign stops,etc,. that would tire out a man half his age? Yes

Are decisions being made behind the scenes as to what "programs" Dr Paul will appear on? Yes



I'll answer your "question", although you haven't formatted it right, about what Dr Paul dreams about at night.

Maybe, he was having a bad day?

Maybe, he doesn't dream about things like that? Maybe he dreams about freedom and the Constitution?

Maybe, he misunderstood the question?

Maybe, Dr Paul is a humble, decent, honest man who doesn't have allusions of grandeur?

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm honestly not sure what more needs to be said in this debate. I have presented fact after fact that proves that Ron Paul is treated more than fairly by the media. I have shown that Ron Paul receives more favorable news coverage than many other candidates, including our President. I have provided evidence that illustrates the refusal of Ron Paul to appear on radio shows and participate in interviews. I have even gone as far as to show that Paul doesn't even consider himself a real contender for the Presidency. I fail to understand after all this, how my opponent can still argue that Ron Paul is not treated fairly.

And was it just me, or did my opponent really just waste 3/4 of their previous response by cutting and pasting the same comments they made earlier? Comments that are only personal opinions of news anchors that have nothing to do with our debate?

Yep. I thought so.

Since my opponent has given us nothing new that supports their position since their opening statements, I really don't have much to go on at this point. I would however like to respond to a couple of the few rational comments that were made in the previous reply.

My opponent was attempting to justify why Ron Paul doesn't believe that he can actually be President when they made the following statements.

Does he have a daily schedule of interviews, campaign stops,etc,. that would tire out a man half his age? Yes

Maybe, he was having a bad day?

Maybe, he misunderstood the question?

So to justify the reason that Paul can't envision himself in the White House, my opponent has basically stated that Paul is perhaps too old and tired to participate in interviews. That maybe Paul can't control his feelings enough to answer simple questions and promote his views. Perhaps Paul just isn't competent enough to understand a basic question about this campaign?

Is that really the best they could come up with?

I have to say as someone who agrees with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say; that I don't see any of those things when I look at him. I see a strong man who believes wholeheartedly in what he says every time I see him speak. I don't see a fragile old man who can't understand the questions he is asked.

My opponent would have you believe that Ron Paul is being treated unfairly by the media because he doesn't receive the same coverage (and no matter what they say it is here for us all to see that it has been their only point of contention) as the other candidates.

I, however, believe differently.

I believe that Ron Paul is a smart enough man that he could have all the coverage and interviews he could handle if he wanted them. The plain fact is, however, that he simply doesn't want it. Ron Paul is getting the treatment that he deserves because it is what he wants. He is being treated completely fair.

I'll give my opponent their closing statement to try and provide something new for us here, but as of now we have not really had much of a debate. Hopefully for my closing I will have something more to go on.

We folks, that's it. This wasn't very much of a debate. My opponent decided to take on the impossible task of arguing against something that is obvious to almost everyone. He attempted to do this by trying to change what the debate what actually about. What happened? My opponent grossly failed as he wouldn't even acknowledge what Mainstream Media is.

Early on in this debate, my opponent CONCEDED that Dr Paul was not given anywhere close to equal airtime in the debates. If you're keeping score, that's 1-0 Pro.

He then uses the first external reference, the Christian Science Monitor, to attempt to make a point. From the first paragraph of his referenced article-

And Texas Congressman Ron Paul garnered the least news media notice of any candidate.

Maybe my opponent shouldn't have used this or actually read the article? 2-0 Pro

My opponent also references the CSM again in his first post.(might as well bury himself) He used innaccurate info from the article and it even referenced Dana Bash, who has treated Dr Paul so unfairly as CNN's main beat reporter covering Dr Paul, that the Paul campaign has asked CNN to remove her!! I called out my opponent for his use of the inaccurate article describing the scene at Moe Joe's, even including a video so he could view first-hand what had actually happened. My opponent chose not to respond to this challenge to his use of this inaccurate reporting. Why? 3-0 Pro

In my opponent's 2nd post, as mentioned above, failed to address either of the problems with his CSM source I spoke of above.

He then attempts to change the debate terms, by including Google searches and obscure blogs into some new definition of MSM.

He then CONCEDES that Dr Paul has not received a fair amount of airtime on MSM stations. My opponent says this isn't part of treating him "fairly". I disagree.4-0 Pro

Since I had to provide my opponent with the definition of MSM from Wiki, I will provide it once again for those just joining-

Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels, which therefore represent what the majority of media consumers are likely to encounter.

My opponent's tactic throughout, has been to attempt to change what this definition is. Did it work to convince those who will judge this debate? I guess we'll see!

He used a tactic that our 42nd president, William Jefferson Clinton, famously tried to use with the grand jury during the Monica Lewinsky mess. Remember this-

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Unfortunately for my opponent, you can't change the subject matter of the debate after it started.

As for my case, could I have posted 100 videos of on-air MSM segments showing biased/unfair treatment of Dr Paul? Sure. I provided a sample video of it and 95% of ATSer's are well aware of it and my opponent in his capacity as a Mod on this site, is well aware of them. I offered to do so for my opponent and even added newspapers to the offer, as they are still considered MSM. He didn't respond to this. I believe I have shown evidence of Dr Paul's unfair treatment by the MSM and my opponent helped with his own external sources to make the my case, as mentioned earlier. Whether that was because he didn't actually read the whole articles that were sourced because of laziness or maybe he did and cherry-picked them, thinking I wouldn't read them. Either way, it was a horrible FAIL on the part of my opponent's use of sources.

In the end-

My opponent conceded two points I mentioned earlier in this post, which is a main portion of this debate.

My opponent attempted to obfuscate the issue of this debate and failed miserably.

It finally happened my friends. My opponent and I have finally agreed on one vital point. This truly was not much of a debate.

My opponent chose to spend their time in this debate accusing me of not discussing the topic of the debate rather than presenting new evidence to support their point. If you will take notice you will find that we have not seen any new evidence in support of their position since the opening statement. All you will find in reading their responses is accusations of changing the topic and the same rehashing of the only point my opponent has made.

Rather than take the time to present their so called "evidence" that Dr. Paul is being treated unfairly by the media, my opponent chose to use their time tallying their "victories" and gloating about how right they were. Instead of trying to make their case through intelligent discussion, they chose to lower the level of this debate with such phrases as "LMAO!!", "LOL" and "BTW". My opponent even went so far as threatening to quit this debate rather than suffer my "incompetence".

It is painfully obvious to any objective observer that my opponent has failed on virtually every level to present a clear and concise message supporting their position.

I, on the other hand, have shown repeatedly that Ron Paul receives perfectly fair treatment by the media. I have presented charts that show the amount of stories from major media outlets that include Ron Paul in the headlines. (not a chart that shows random Google searches as my opponent claims) I have shown a chart that clearly shows that Ron Paul receives more favorable news coverage than many other candidates, as well as the least amount of negative coverage of ANY candidate. What's more, I made the clear case that Ron Paul should not be receiving any more coverage because he doesn't even believe he can win the job!

In summary, I believe the distinction between what I have shown and what my opponent has not shown is crystal clear.

There is no doubt that Ron Paul is being treated fairly by the media.

And the winner is??

Closed for judging

Semper

We have a WINNER!!!

freedom12:
Very weak opening: Background introduction is totally irrelevant in a debate. Friends' opinions are also irrelevant if you are discussing national issues. Videos are poor debate foundations. Debates are supposed to be based on facts and figures. Video commentary by comedians counts have never been considered as valid material in previous debates. Nyk537 is debating Freedom12, not Colbert.

nyk537:
Strong opening, questioning what "fair treatment" means. Quotes from a source and links to the source. However, after asking the question, there's actually no follow through and the summary ending is weak.

freedom12:
The post opens with a dismissal of the debate as trivial and Freedom confessing confusion at Nyk's post and stating that she can't follow his line of reasoning. She then editorializes on one of his sources and posts a video to prove her point and editorializes it without analyzing it ("this action occurs at 5:12 in the video," etc) Freedom12 does not present additional links, and does not establish the credibility or source of her video. However, this is a debate -- not a video matchup, and I doubt Dr. Paul would enter a debate and say "watch this video" as a response to one of Romney's points.

nyk537:
Addresses the issue of blog credibility, links to sources, and presents a table (with links to sources) showing that other candidates are even more ignored. He presents a second graphic (with sources) on favorable versus unfavorable mention using the same research foundation that Freedom12 cites in her first post. He touches again on the concept that "mainstream media" is vaguely identified.

freedom12:
The tone of the first set of sentences appears to be incivil -- contemptuous, baiting, demeaning. Debates are supposed to be an exchange of facts and information, not name calling. She harps on the accuracy of a single video on YouTube, which appears to be a very sore point with her. However, she does not bring up any other media sources (such as, perhaps, information from Ron Paul's own campaign website) to back her view. Rather than backing up her statements with other statistics from sources that monitor the media, she fixates on single sources and threatens to link individual articles (and it would be tiresome and pointless to have thousands of links.) She fails to take a better tactical stance, which would be to compare Paul's ratings and his campaign activity (tours, appearances, etc) with the number of mentions of his name in both local and national news. She also fails to compare press activity about others during days when they are not the focus of attacks and are not doing any media events -- data which might have given her argument a very sound footing. The closing line has an unpleasant tone, as though Freedom12 is sneering.


nyk537:
Good points made about what constitutes "main stream media." However, his point about Paul refusing interviews is weak without sourcing links. Very weak ending.

Freedom12:
The reprise, frankly, is rude. Instead of bringing in statistics and sources, we are treated to an opinion of news-as-entertainment and then a description of reporters as editorializers. It is not clear if she is confusing editorial posts and news blog posts with news stories. She castigates several reporters but does not note if these people are the only ones covering Dr. Paul or if they ever made positive comments or how highly placed these are in the news rooms. Finally, she states she knows what Dr. Paul dreams about (roleplaying at its worst) but gives no direct source which talks about his dreams (and whether or not these are nighttime dreams or simply personal aspirations.)

nyk537:
Is beginning to take on the same tone as Freedom12 -- which is not to his credit. The response to the "schedule" comment was poorly thought out -- Nyk missed the chance to compare schedules of Dr. Paul with that of candidates near his age.

Final remarks
Freedom12:
This mean-spirited wrapup presents no new information.

nyk537:
Has not presented a strong wrapup rebuttal but does reprise sourced material (not refuted earlier by any sourced material) that suggests media is not pointedly ignoring him and does indeed ignore many other candidates.


FINAL RULING: nyk537 has presented multiple sources of data to support his point. Freedom12 has not managed to present evidence showing that Nyk537's sourced data is incorrect or is biased. Freedom12 presents a single sourced statement and a non-sourced YouTube video and alludes to other sources that she has never named. In the attack against "MSM," she does not indicate how often the unfavorable material was editorial rather than news related. There is no analysis of which precise outlets are championing the "Ignore Paul" paradigm and which demographic they are targeting with this effort.

Debate to nyk537

Freedom12 Intro:
Paragraphs 2 and 3 irrelevant. The Pew Research Graph and CBS debates were well made and pertinent. The Meet the Press point was not very strong though. Stage Positioning was a very valid and strong point, and the Jon Stewart clip is moving.

Nyk537 Intro:
Straight to the point, very good tactic of defining “fair” by more than just airtime. Never really developed the point of negative vs. positive coverage of Paul as compared to other candidates. Redefining Internet presence as “mainstream” seems to be pretty shaky ground, especially with the MSM outlets consistently downplaying or even ridiculing the online presence. The CBS poll where Paul ties Obama was a nice point, especially in comparison to Freedom12’s CBS data as the most unfair outlet.

Freedom12 second post:
The sarcasm was a turnoff, but the points about bloggers were decent points, made less effective by the sour tone. A lot of time wasted on the Joe’s Diner incident, and no real development of their position in the debate.

Nyk537 second post:
Again, too much emphasis on the bloggers as “news” coverage, which is a losing point. The NYT article with Google Searches could have been developed to show that MSM coverage is similar to Google searches, and thus “fair” but instead the point was diluted by discussing the other 9 candidates below Paul. The chart with the “Tone” of News Coverage was also inconclusive. The chart didn’t show any real discrepancy one way or another and was mostly neutral. From that chart a point could have been made that Paul is being treated fairly, or equally sufficiently that Paul is being ignored. The rest of the post is addressed at the other poster, and no debate points made.

Freedom12 third post:
Points for pointing back to the debate topic, and for defining “Mainstream Media.” Pointing back to the distraction of Joe’s Diner was wasted effort though. Good points on distinguishing between “news” and “opinion programming,” but wasn’t developed far enough.

Nyk537 third post:
Again, first 3rd of post dedicated to the opponent, and no real debate points made. When the post turns toward Paul’s refusal of interviews, and Paul’s own admission that he does not see himself as president it has potential, but he doesn’t convert it to the idea of “fairness” very well. The point is made, but it could have been driven home more.

Freedom12 fourth post:
Counterpoints were effective to begin the post. Reposting previous material was a waste of space and somewhat annoying though. Point lost on the quote Nyk uses. It was not out of context, it was a direct admission by Freedom12, and it was a mistake to reiterate it again. Only strengthens Nyk’s argument. Good points on scheduling decisions though.

Nyk537 fourth post:
Mistake to rest on previous presentation. It was not as strong as the poster assumes. Great points on using Freedom’s words to paint Paul as old, tired, and confused. Very effective. Also effective stating Paul gets all the coverage that he wants.

Freedom12 closing:
Abusive tactic to call something “obvious to most people,” and again the sourness taints an otherwise good post. The point of the first line in his opponents article is a great one! Pointing back to the original subject of the debate again is good, and keeping a score count is a good illustrative technique. Stating what “could have” been posted is wasted space again though. Referring to the opponent as Mod, and calling him “lazy” were more sour apples that only damaged the overall decent closing.

Nyk537 closing:
First 4 paragraphs lowered this reply to the sour level of his opponent and did not help any of his positions or points. Referring back to the Google chart, and the Tone chart was a weak position to reiterate in closing. Each of those sources were rather neutral, not strong points. The neutrality could have been used as a strong selling point of “fairness,” but they weren’t developed enough to drive that point home.

In conclusion, the debate was amateurish and both sides were weakly developed. Both debaters seemed to rely heavily on ego or assumptions of the reader rather than developing their points. As an outside observer it would be almost impossible to pick a side from this debate; the material was just too weak. Since a winner must be chosen, this Judge chooses Nyk537 as the winner based on the facts provided, even though there were not fully developed. Also, Freedom12’s consistent sour tone, and cut and paste of previous material was enough to push someone to the other side of the debate, with all other points being somewhat equal.

Win to Nyk537, but only ever so slightly.

nyk537 is the WINNER

Congratulations to both Fighters