Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    19 Mar '17 10:53
    In case you thought this was ever going away....

    YouTube : Deal with it
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    19 Mar '17 14:59
    There was also this thread about fake news:

    Thread 171262

    It should be noted that "fake news" does not included honest mistakes by journalists in reporting news. Fake news involves deliberately spreading false or misleading information, and can involve news outlets who consistently spread false information due to not fact-checking.
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    19 Mar '17 15:46
    Originally posted by vivify
    There was also this thread about fake news:

    Thread 171262

    It should be noted that "fake news" does not included honest mistakes by journalists in reporting news. Fake news involves deliberately spreading false or misleading information, and can involve news outlets who consistently spread false information due to not fact-checking.
    My challenge to the deniers of 9/11 trutherism is to watch the vid and then tell me that all they see are just conspiracist loons making fake news.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    19 Mar '17 16:22
    Originally posted by kmax87
    My challenge to the deniers of 9/11 trutherism is to watch the vid and then tell me that all they see are just conspiracist loons making fake news.
    You know what, I'll agree that there is some validity to the beliefs that the Towers didn't fall simply from a plane crash. The problem comes once believers of this start pushing out reasons for why others may have been involved; claims that spectacularly incompetent Bush orchestrated this in order to get oil in Iraq, to the Illuminati setting this up to use America for world domination.

    If the 9/11 conspiracy theorists would simply stick to offering evidence for 9/11 needing more than planes to fall, they wouldn't be so readily dismissed. Simply admitting they probably don't know why there's a conspiracy would be better than offering wild claims that act to invalidate their arguments completely.
  5. 19 Mar '17 17:25
    Originally posted by vivify
    You know what, I'll agree that there is some validity to the beliefs that the Towers didn't fall simply from a plane crash. The problem comes once believers of this start pushing out reasons for why others may have been involved; claims that spectacularly incompetent Bush orchestrated this in order to get oil in Iraq, to the Illuminati setting this up to use ...[text shortened]... acy would be better than offering wild claims that act to invalidate their arguments completely.
    If it was only Bush trying to invade Iraq I would agree, but it was not. The USA has wanted to invade that country for a long time but could not get the people to support it. 911 changed that.

    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
  6. 19 Mar '17 17:43
    Originally posted by vivify
    It should be noted that "fake news" does not included honest mistakes by journalists in reporting news. Fake news involves deliberately spreading false or misleading information, and can involve news outlets who consistently spread false information due to not fact-checking.
    That depends on whether you accept the concept of alternative facts. It is obvious that republicans consider 'fake news' to be anything they don't agree with or is inconvenient.
  7. 19 Mar '17 17:49
    Originally posted by kmax87
    My challenge to the deniers of 9/11 trutherism is to watch the vid and then tell me that all they see are just conspiracist loons making fake news.
    I got about 2 minutes in, and I have to say that all I see are just conspiracist loons making up stupid stuff. I wouldn't call it fake news, because that is not what it is. It is a bunch of seriously scientifically challenged people trying to claim that buildings cannot collapse. There is stupid, and then there is conspiracist loon stupid.
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    19 Mar '17 18:37
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    If it was only Bush trying to invade Iraq I would agree, but it was not. The USA has wanted to invade that country for a long time but could not get the people to support it.
    False.

    Only ten years before Bush Jr. took office, his father went to war with Iraq, for a reason that WAS supported by the public: to liberate Kuwaitis from invasion led by a cruel dictator.