JT Round 1. BillfromCovina vs Westcoast: Bad News

The topic for this debate is "Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.”

BillfromCovina will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Westcoast will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

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- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

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

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

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 for a 24 hour extension 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.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

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

Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.
This is a very bold and inclusive statement, but very true. By nefarious conspiracy, I contend that media conglomeration and deregulation was planned and is detestable and injurious to all. This includes being detrimental to the conspirators.

In order to have a conspiracy, we need to have conspirators working on a hidden agenda. For the past thirty years we have seen the deregulation of the media and the huge conglomeration of all media. We were told from the business community and government that this would give people more options and cheaper prices. We are now in a position where seven companies control over 96% of all media and you have to pay for basic television. The stated agenda did not happen. So who are the conspirators and what is their agenda?

The cabal includes business, governmental, and racial interests. The business interests not only means the corporation that owns the media but its advertisers. The 'Hidden Hand' would ultimately guide the corporation. This means that the corporations ultimate goal is to make money for itself and its sponsors. It promotes its various businesses and opposes any information that is harmful. The government would want concentration of media to make manipulation of the public easier. It only needs to control a few outlets instead of thousands. Finally, by racial interests I mean the Jewish control of major media. The agenda would be to promote Jewish interests and Zionism.

"Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.”


I am glad to see that we are under way! Thanks to the mods for keeping this going and to BillfromCovina for stepping into the vacancy. I have been looking forward to this opportunity.

I had quite the opening post rolling around in my head for the past several days as I waited for my chance to flex my fingers. In light of my opponents choices for points of discussion however, I think it best to keep this short and to the point so we can continue.

In the last year or two I have given more thought to how the media plays a role in our society. It has become more apparent to me that we are controlled to a degree by what is put out there through numerous sources. Even so, I was surprised when I started researching this to find that the majority of all media outlets are controlled by less than ten corporations. Having said that, I think it is important to remember what it is we are debating here; that they are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.

Nefarious is defined as extremely wicked or villainous. In reading through BillfromCovina’s opening statement I am at a loss as to what it is he thinks will prove his argument. It seems that the main point (he states) is that 96% of media outlets are owned by seven companies,that these companies’ goals are to make money and that they are also controlled by government interests in order to control the populace. Aside from needing some documentation to back up the numbers, I wouldn’t argue that a large percentage of media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations. That alone, however, does not define a conspiracy. I call it good business. We are talking about billions of dollars here and the entrepreneurs that dominate this market are some of the wealthiest in the world.

It may not be hard to prove who owns the companies and who the CEO’s are, but the government involvement is going to be more difficult. Do I think it exists? Most likely it does, to some degree. (Money is power) But again, this does not equal a conspiracy. I really don’t think there is an elite group of media moguls meeting in black hooded robes behind locked doors around a pentagram shaped table.

I am prepared to present information to help prove my view point of large, powerful corporations that while are influential are not nefarious. The only subject my opponent brings up that I feel may even come close to fitting the definition of nefarious, would be his suggestion of a specific ethnic group trying to control a populaces religious beliefs and lifestyle. This depends on your own beliefs though and ethnicity. However, so little was said as to what his intent in this area is that I do not want to make any assumptions and will wait for BillfromCovina to expand and defend his arguments. The ball is in your court.

Greetings Westcoast, I am sorry to keep you waiting. I am glad that you have had plenty of time to contemplate this subject and wish you luck.

I do not like to make long posts and try to make my points quick so people will read it and not get bored. It appears that through your research you agree that only a handful of companies control our media. It also appears that you concede the point that they are under Jewish or Zionist control with this quote, “It may not be hard to prove who owns the companies and who the CEO’s are, but the government involvement is going to be more difficult.” I provide the following link to kill two birds with one stone. www.jewwatch.com.... I reference the 96% and Jewish or Zionist control. Let’s not waste time with fighting over the source since you already concede the point. I could provide numerous links and sources but this information is readily available. My seven companies are; Vivendi, GE, News Corp, Viacom, Bertelsmann, Time Warner, and Walt Disney. My seven or your handful, I believe constitute what the majority of people refer to as the Main Street Media.

Question 1- Who is the Main Street Media?

Question 2- Do a majority of people despise, detest or at the very least find the Main Street Media highly objectionable and unreliable?

You state that government involvement is going to be difficult to show but then state,” Do I think it exists? Most likely it does, to some degree.” Why should I back up my claim if you already concede it and believe the same thing? Government involvement is not difficult to show but in fact very easy. The government does control the media and corporations through laws, regulations, licensing, access, government contracts, and taxes. This is very obvious. In the US we have three branches of government being the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive has control over enforcement of laws, regulations, and licensing. It is in charge, for example, of the FCC. The Legislative branch passes the laws and legislation governing media and corporations. The Judicial interprets those laws. In fact, we have a symbiotic relationship between corporations and the government. Corporations donate to politicians and judges to help them get elected. Corporations also hire lobbyists to help write laws. Not only has the government promoted the centralization of media, it is also trying to legislate and regulate independent forms of the media. Here are two links showing how the government has allowed the huge conglomeration and deregulation of the media. www.pbs.org... www.wifp.org...

Question 3- What is the government’s reason, told to the public, for allowing the deregulation and conglomeration of the media?

Wow. I’m having a hard time deciding what I want to respond to first, and to keep it civil. To be frank, I am finding your racist stance here hard to swallow, but I will do my best.

First, I in no way conceded to your claim that the media is 'under Jewish or Zionist control' with my statement,

“It may not be hard to prove who owns the companies and who the CEO’s are, but the government involvement is going to be more difficult.”

This would imply that I agree with such a racist belief which I do not. It seems that you assumed that I believe if someone who owns a company is a certain religion it automatically means their intent is to force said religion on the masses? I think you take too much liberty with my comments.

Your source. I’m a bit floored that you would provide a link to a racist watchdog site as your ‘proof’ for a nefarious conspiracy. Let us revisit what it is that you are to prove in our debate; that most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy. I tried not to make any assumptions with your opening statement but I think with this link you have made your intentions in this debate painfully clear. To be sure though, let me give you a formal question.

My first question to you: Are you claiming that most major media outlets are controlled by people of Jewish belief and that they are trying to turn America into a Zionist country, which you think is an evil conspiracy?

Let me take a direct quote from your source:

"The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions. The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. "

This is just a small snippet from that site. Personally, I have a hard time reading through it. More to the point, it proves absolutely nothing. You stated,

“Let’s not waste time with fighting over the source since you already concede the point. I could provide numerous links and sources but this information is readily available.”

I certainly did not. Your opinion that just because someone is Jewish means that they are part of an evil plan, is not proof of anything. The whole point to the debate is to convince me and others that you are right. Simply saying it is not enough.

I will answer your stated questions since it is a requirement, but I think they are rather redundant and don’t really seem to have much to do with your main stance.

My response to question 1.Who is the mainstream media?

First, Wikipedia says:

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. The term also denotes those media generally reflective of the prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity

Source

Further, in my research I found the following Companies to be some of the largest: Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Bertelsmann AG and Disney. Yes, we list the same agencies for the most part. In that we agree. Again, this alone proves absolutely nothing except that they are very smart businessmen.

My response to question 2. Do a majority of people despise, detest or at the very least find the Main Street Media highly objectionable and unreliable?

I am at a loss as to what this has to do with the debate, but am happy to answer it. While I think that a lot of people may find some of the MSM objectionable or unreliable, to say that the majority despise and detest it is a bit of a reach. If this were the case, they would not be profiting in the way that they are. People would not be buying the magazines, the newspapers, paying to go see the movies or turning on the television. Remember, MSM is not only the news. It is very far reaching and includes all forms of entertainment, even cruises and resorts to a degree. America especially is very much in love with our entertainment, and that is why it is so powerful and sought after.

You said,

“You state that government involvement is going to be difficult to show but then state,” Do I think it exists? Most likely it does, to some degree.” Why should I back up my claim if you already concede it and believe the same thing? Government involvement is not difficult to show but in fact very easy.

You need to back it up in order to make your claim, but you really haven’t made one yet, that was my point. In your opening argument you made a very general reference to the government and how they have tried to conglomerate and deregulate the media. Yet you did not explain or argue why you think this is important or how it plays into a nefarious conspiracy.

So, my second question to you is this: Do you believe the government is involved in the (Zionist?) nefarious conspiracy? If so, how and why?

My response to your question number 3. What is the government’s reason, told to the public, for allowing the deregulation and conglomeration of the media?

I think that this is your question to answer as you are the one making the claim, but the process and evolvement of the media has been a very slow process that changes with the ever-growing media source. Meaning, that thirty years ago the sources we had then pale in comparison to what we have now. Unfortunately, these advances have also meant more government involvement for a number of reasons. One of those is to protect people’s interests and yes, control. Information is power and power is money. Again, I don’t disagree that having control over the media is a powerful thing. It is your job though to prove that there is in fact a nefarious conspiracy surrounding it.

My stance is that while I agree that most major media outlets are controlled by a limited group of people, I do not believe that there is a nefarious conspiracy driving them. The only argument you have given is that you feel they are owned and managed by, how did your source put it? ‘Jews’, and that this means they are conspiring for ‘Zionist control’.

I find this extremely racist and offensive. So what if five out of the top ten companies was owned by people who claimed to be Jewish? What if the other five are owned by Christians? Shouldn’t you then think that there was a nefarious Christian conspiracy to convert all the other religions? No? Why not? Are the Jewish people nefarious for some reason? I simply do not see your point of view and you have yet to give an actual reason as to how this in any way equates to a nefarious conspiracy. Again, the ball is in your court.

Hello Mods,

I need a 24 hr extension. Thank you

Well Westcoast, it didn’t take you long to get dirty. Of course, if you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger. At no time did I attack someone’s religion or make any racist statement. I am only pointing out the obvious players. Who is Jewish and what does it mean? www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... Can I point out the Jewish control of the MSM (Mainstream Media) without being called racist? Jews are 2.2% of the population in the US yet have majority control of the MSM. Can a website point out the obvious without being called anti-Semitic. I know people who consider themselves Jews who are atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, and even Christian. Jewish identity involves more than religion. I could convert today but I would not be allowed the ‘right of return’ to Israel. Another could be an atheist but considered more Jewish than me and allowed. I purposely kept my meaning open. You are the one who made assumptions and jumped to conclusions. You also seemed to be very confused as to what a racist belief is. A racist belief does not mean I oppose someone’s religion.

“This would imply that I agree with such a racist belief which I do not. It seems that you assumed that I believe if someone who owns a company is a certain religion it automatically means their intent is to force said religion on the masses?”

Pointing out someone’s race, ethnicity, culture, or religion, does not rise to the level of racism. I am sure you have the ability to look up the meaning of the word racism if you don’t understand it. I consider that a cheap shot.

Response to question: Are you claiming that most major media outlets are controlled by people of Jewish belief and that they are trying to turn America into a Zionist country, which you think is an evil conspiracy?

Again with your first question you want to make it about religion. The Jews in biblical times had many gods, including Baal and Molech so your reference to Jewish belief is hazy. Again people who I identify as Jewish can be secular and atheist. Are Jews who control the media trying to convert Americans to official Judaism? Absolutely not. Judaism is not known to try and convert people. Are the Jews who control the media trying to turn America into a Zionist country? First of all let me define Zionism. I will use the first paragraph from Wikipedia

“Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is primarily a nationalist[1] or national liberation[2] Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[3] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to 1) non-political, Cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and 2) political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism.”

So basically, the Jews in media are trying to shape public opinion in America to politically support Israel. If by that definition that makes us a Zionist country, then your answer is yes. This is why in my opening statement I mentioned Jews with Zionism.

My assessment of your response to my question #1: Who is the Main Stream Media?

In your definition from Wikipedia you conveniently left out

” Large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, which underwent successive mergers in the U.S. and elsewhere at an increasing rate beginning in the 1990s, are often referenced by the term. This consolidation of ownership has raised concerns of a progressive homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.”

Lets straighten out what we are talking about here. Large news conglomerates. Part of the title of this thread says Bad News. We are not talking about the manufacturer of DVD’s. Your mention of cruise ships and resorts is laughable. A company may use the media to advertise its products but that does not make them part of the MSM.
You agree with five of my companies but seem afraid to list your ten. Does Alaska Cruise Lines make your list? You’re silly. Let me expand the list since you are afraid to mention your ten. Let’s add Sirus radio, CBS, and Clear Channel. Part of the problem of using the first website is that some of the information is not up to date. That is acceptable criticism. For instance CBS and Viacom split. Eisner is no longer CEO of Disney and has been replaced by Jewish CEO Robert Iger. The Jewish CEO of CBS is Leslie Moonves and the Jewish CEO of Sirus Radio is Mel Karmazin. Clear Channel does not have a Jewish CEO but they do have a lot of Zionist programming in defence of Israel. Part of the problem in finding out who is Jewish is that some conveniently forgot. Rupert Murdoch, for instance, of News Corp. Maybe he is one of your hypothetical Christian owners or CEO’s that you are afraid to list. I provide this link as to his background. www.currentissues.tv... So to sum it up I view your answer as a partial, over broad avoidance.

My assessment of your response to my question #2: Do a majority of people despise, detest or at the very least find the MSM highly objectionable and unreliable?

Again you give another partial answer. I made it an either or question. I have one extreme of detest or a reasonable “highly objectionable and unreliable.” Again I ask if a majority of people could choose my reasonable option. You respond with, “that a lot of people may find some of the MSM objectionable or unreliable.” That was not a choice. If you refer back to my reference in Wikipedia it describes the use of MSM as negative not positive. This term is used so negatively that some factions of the MSM use it against the others. The pot calling the kettle black. Fox is an example. You claim that they would not be making money if people felt negative about them. This is not true. Because I pay my taxes this does not mean I do not despise the IRS. Between despise, detest or find highly objectionable and unreliable. I have no problem believing that a vast majority close to 70% would chose these options. I reference the following poll.soonerpoll.com...

My assessment of your response to my question #3: What is the government’s reason, told to the public, for allowing the deregulation and conglomeration of the media?

This question you decided to just not answer. I asked for the public reason given for deregulation, and conglomeration of media not the conspiracy. Maybe you just have a hard time understanding. Here is a link to a news story on this subject. www.salon.com... If you refer back to my opening post I tell you what the reasons the government has told us and what I believe the conspiracy is. The conspiracy is not the public reason because it would no longer be a conspiracy.

Question #4 for you: What is a conspiracy?

My answer to your 2nd question: Do you believe the government is involved in the (Zionist?) nefarious conspiracy? If so, how and why? Yes I believe the government is involved in the nefarious conspiracy. How? By deregulating the MSM and trying to regulate independent forms of media such as the Internet. Why? This makes it easier to control the media and manipulate the public. Each player in a conspiracy can have different reasons for taking part. The governments goal in this does not necessarily have to be the same as the other co-conspirators.

I hope you have taken notes on how to answer a question.

Second reponse

We seem to have very different interpretations of what it means to prove ones point of view. Very well. That is, after all what a debate is for, right? If you felt personally attacked I apologize as that was not the intent. I simply said that I was offended since I found some of your comments and references racist. You, on the other hand now find it necessary to imply I am less intelligent than yourself and ‘silly’ because I do not share your point of view. Can we continue with the debate topic? The point here is who presents the best debate, not who can make the other one look stupid.

Let’s start with a definition taken again from Wikipedia:

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ "Yehudim" IPA: jɛhuːdiːm), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia.

Source

You’ll have to forgive me if I am not as studied as you are in the political structure of Israel. I think that I reacted the same as any typical American would in light of your comments. This is why, in my opening statement I clearly said that I did not want to make any assumptions and invited you to explain your stance in greater detail. All you responded with was to say most of the MSM was operated by Jews and provided a link to a website called ‘Jew Watch’ and told me to find the ‘proof’ myself.

Proof of what?

That is the whole point of this debate. Not to make generalized, open-ended comments and then tell me to find it myself. I obviously do not share your opinion of the Jewish people. It is up to you to convince me and the judges of it. Berating me for not agreeing with you gets us nowhere.

Another definition that I think is very important:

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.

Source

When you call someone a Jew I am going to assume that you are referring to their religious belief, their ethnicity or both. I interpreted your comments to mean that you believe just because someone is Jewish, that they are part of this conspiracy. If I am wrong, than I apologize.

I gave you the opportunity to flesh out your reasons and you responded with this:

So basically, the Jews in media are trying to shape public opinion in America to politically support Israel. If by that definition that makes us a Zionist country, then your answer is yes. This is why in my opening statement I mentioned Jews with Zionism.

In everything you have written, this is the only comment you have made that would possibly hint at a conspiracy theory that you would then try and prove meets the criteria of this debate, which is to prove that:

"Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.”

So my third question to you is: How is it that you think Jews in the media are trying to shape the American opinion to politically support Israel?

You make it sound as if there is only one political party and one political agenda for Israel, but that isn’t so. It is quite diversified. Just because someone is Jewish does not mean they all share one political view. This is why when you make a blanket statement regarding a certain ethnicity you need to be careful and explain what you mean; otherwise it can be interpreted as racist, since most people are not well versed in this area.

As to my answers to your questions; Just because you didn’t like them does not mean they weren’t answered. To me, they were clear. You didn’t ask me to list out ten MSM corporations and since we seem to agree who they are, I didn’t see a need to go into further detail. I do feel that describing what the MSM is plays into the debate question just as much as who owns it.

You called me ‘silly’ for referring to a cruise line as being part of this medium. Have you ever heard of the Disney cruise line? It is part of one of the biggest MSM corporations out there and if you don’t think there isn’t a heck of a lot of money and advertising involved than you must not watch television or look in magazines very often. MSM = mainstream MEDIA. Media is NOT just the news. It is any form of communication that reaches the masses. This involves the obvious such as television, newspapers, magazines and radio but it also now spreads out into the internet, music, drama, theatre, music, advertising and even video games. The ‘Bad News’ was just the tag line for the debate, not the debate topic itself.

If you need me to refine my answer to your second question, fair enough. Answer to question number two: NO.

As far as my answer to question number three, I'm sorry if you didn’t like it. That doesn't mean I didn’t answer it. It was an opinion; you don’t have to agree with it. If you have a better answer than please by all means enlighten me.

You stated:

If you refer back to my opening post I tell you what the reasons the government has told us and what I believe the conspiracy is. The conspiracy is not the public reason because it would no longer be a conspiracy.

I have read back over your opening statement and I fail to see this. All you really said about the government was:

The government would want concentration of media to make manipulation of the public easier. It only needs to control a few outlets instead of thousands.

Okay, that is a start. Now you need to tie that into whatever your conspiracy theory is. This FINALLY brings us around to what we are here for;

"Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.”

Are you building up to this? Because if we are going to actually debate your theory vs. what defines a jew and what racism is, than we need to get on with it. You asked for my opinion to define this with your fourth question to me:

Your question number four for me: What is a conspiracy?

I will give you my own personal definition of what this means to me. I believe that for there to be a conspiracy, it entails a cunning plot intentionally developed by a group of individuals with similar beliefs and agendas. It is typically secret, with a clear plan of action that involves manipulation that would otherwise not be allowed or tolerated if exposed. It needs to affect the general public or at least a large group of people and have far reaching repercussion. Most conspiracy theories are regarded as being ‘out there’ or on the ‘fringe’ because of their nature and outlandishness.

Now add on the ‘nefarious’ and this further entails that it is specifically an evil, harmful plan. I take this to mean that not only would it not be tolerated, but a large number of people would be harmed or killed by it.

I want to stress again the importance in keeping this civil. I feel that the debate forum is a great opportunity to show other ATS members how it is possible to have differing viewpoints and debate a topic without personally attacking each other. One of the reasons for a debate is it to learn others ideas and beliefs and to maybe even change your own in the end. For example, I had no idea that there were five major political parties in Israel until I researched it. I honestly want to hear your position on this. I have never had a discussion with anyone about the political agenda of Israel and how anyone might then tie this into the Jewish community here in America.

Westcoast, I am happy to tone things down but you need to remember you brought the word racism in. My response was mild in comparison. I did not choose the topic or my position but I have to be willing to at least point out the players. Rick Sanchez from CNN was recently fired for suggesting something similar on a radio show. www.nypost.com...On an anonymous blog, I need to have the courage to at least do the same.

It appears you are no longer denying Jewish or Zionist control of the MSM at the top, or my choice of companies. I am glad to see that you have expanded your view of what a Jew is and you are doing research on the political parties of Israel. Unfortunately, that would only sidetrack this discussion.

Answer to your 3rd question: How is it that you think Jews in the media are trying to shape the American opinion to politically support Israel? My purpose in pointing Jewish control out is that the news is one-sided. A big deal is made when a Palestinian shoots a bottle rocket into Israel and it lands harmlessly into a field but Israeli war crimes are glossed over. One side is portrayed as terrorists and the other as just poor innocent civilians. When a Muslim country starts researching nuclear power it is portrayed as evil. Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal is not talked about. It does rise to the level of evil when people are fighting wars over these issues. Israel would not exist without US support for so long. In order to fight a war a government needs public support. This is where the media comes in. As we know media has a huge influence on public opinion. War does rise to the level of evil.

We now have a problem with definitions. Let’s start with the MSM. I pointed out in my response to you that you had conveniently left out that it commonly referenced large news conglomerates. This comes from your own source In Wikipedia. By leaving out this reference you are being deceptive. Cruise lines are not part of the MSM. Because Ted Turner owns a cattle ranch, I cannot make a blanket statement that cattle ranching is part of the MSM. By this standard, everything becomes part of the MSM and we cannot have a discussion.

Let me now discuss your interpretation of the word conspiracy. For the word nefarious it appears you used the dictionary interpretation of extremely wicked or villainous. Westcoast post,

“Nefarious is defined as extremely wicked or villainous.”

You have been using dictionaries and Wikipedia for your definitions throughout, so why stop now? You now give us your own narrow interpretation of the word conspiracy. You post,

“I will give you my own personal definition of what this means to me. I believe that for there to be a conspiracy, it entails a cunning plot intentionally developed by a group of individuals with similar beliefs and agendas. It is typically secret, with a clear plan of action that involves manipulation that would otherwise not be allowed or tolerated if exposed. It needs to affect the general public or at least a large group of people and have far reaching repercussion. Most conspiracy theories are regarded as being ‘out there’ or on the ‘fringe’ because of their nature and outlandishness.”

A conspiracy is defined as the act of conspiring together. To conspire means simply to plot or to plan together in secret. For example, me and another employee could conspire to take over a company. Our conspiracy does not need to involve any of your outrageous personal definition except that it was a secret plot. You obviously thought going into this that I have an insurmountable mountain to climb. When you realized what a conspiracy is you decided to use your own personal definition. I have no problem with your definition of nefarious as being extremely wicked or villainous but you need to realize that a conspiracy is only a secret plan between two or more people.

An interesting point that you acknowledge about a conspiracy is that it is hatched in secret. I never stated in any of my posts that I would prove anything to you. I am not part of the conspiracy so I can never really know the true motives of the original conspirators. I can only point out some of the obvious motives that seem apparent. I can provide simple information that supports my theory but never definitive proof. Only the conspirators could reveal that. You post,

“All you responded with was to say most of the MSM was operated by Jews and provided a link to a website called ‘Jew Watch’ and told me to find the ‘proof’ myself. “

I never told you to prove anything yourself or that I would prove it.

In my opening statement, I told you what was told to the public as the reason for deregulation of the media. “For the past thirty years we have seen the deregulation of the media and the huge conglomeration of all media. We were told from the business community and government that this would give people more options and cheaper prices.” In my last post I provide a link to one news story related to this. Why would you keep working on something for over thirty years if your goals were not met but just the opposite was happening? Why would some of the smartest people in this country, having gone to the best schools not have a problem with continuing a policy that was failing? We were told what the public goals were. Is it possible they are not telling the public everything? Is it possible there are secret agendas and goals? If there are then that qualifies as a conspiracy.

We now come down to our definition of nefarious as being extremely wicked or villainous. Words like nefarious, wicked and villainous are not absolute but depend on your perspective. A word like conspiracy is absolute and has a simple meaning. The robber is not seen as a villain to his family. The pilot who drops a bomb on a city is seen as a hero to his countrymen but extremely wicked to those he bombs. So to interpret words like wicked and villain we would have to take the perspective of the majority of people where we are at.

I believe a majority of people in this country would like the (news) media to be objective and tell the truth. They would want it to be a watchdog on the government. They want it to let us know who the crooks are and what they are up to. If the MSM was being used to lie us into wars, hide government wrongdoing, and hide corporate corruption a majority of people would see this as highly objectionable. I believe a majority of people already believe at least one of these are true. This is why the MSM is portrayed in a negative way for a majority of people. I provided one link previously to a poll. There are many other polls that verify this. The MSM is seen as a villain.

Westcoast, I agree to extend the debate for the holidays. I do not expect to see your post until Friday or Saturday. Have a Happy Thanksgiving to you and Mods.

Third Response

Did you honestly expect to go with the controversial 'Zionist control our media/government' theory and NOT have the word racist come up? You have again made a blanket statement regarding what I am thinking simply because I used the word Jewish.

You said:

It appears you are no longer denying Jewish or Zionist control of the MSM at the top, or my choice of companies. I am glad to see that you have expanded your view of what a Jew is…

What I actually said was:

So what if five out of the top ten companies was owned by people who claimed to be Jewish? What if the other five are owned by Christians? Shouldn’t you then think that there was a nefarious Christian conspiracy to convert all the other religions?

Then in my next response:

That is the whole point of this debate. Not to make generalized, open-ended comments and then tell me to find it myself. I obviously do not share your opinion of the Jewish people. It is up to you to convince me and the judges of it.

And:

You didn’t ask me to list out ten MSM corporations and since we seem to agree who they are, I didn’t see a need to go into further detail.

So please explain to me, where in this text I somehow elude to the fact that I agree there is a Zionist control of the MSM? You seem to want to put words in my mouth and I resent the implication; I in no way said or implied that belief.

You accuse me of being deceptive because I list other sources of MSM in addition to the news, yet it is you who is being deceptive. To try and claim that the news conglomerate is the only source of MSM so that you can then narrow the control of what you have to prove is ridiculous. On top of that, you still have not provided ONE piece of evidence to prove your theory.

You said:

A big deal is made when a Palestinian shoots a bottle rocket into Israel and it lands harmlessly into a field but Israeli war crimes are glossed over. One side is portrayed as terrorists and the other as just poor innocent civilians

That’s it? That's all you have? Okay, if we are going to talk in generalizations and one story vs. another, how about we talk about the Palestinians? I could bring up all the war crimes issued against them, the mass murders and suicide bombings. I could argue that they are no different than the Nazi’s promoting genocide of the Jewish race and perhaps our news media shows the truth. Sure, there are bound to be politics at play in what is reported and what is seen, but that is the way it has always been and always will be. The general public has always had to investigate and educate themselves to learn the whole story. This alone however does not define a nefarious conspiracy.

Going back to your theory, I want to make sure I am clear because you are using the term Zionist and there are a couple of different ways to use it. You claim that because a certain percentage of the top ten MSM outlets are managed by people who are Jewish that they are then part of the Zionist plan. That they are manipulating what we see through news stories in order to win public opinion to support Israel and enter into a war/conflict in their support?

I have been trying to put this into context and it seems to most closely resemble an old theory and one that is largely dismissed because of its racist roots called the Zionest Occupation Government.

The word "Zionist" in "Zionist Occupation Government" is derived from the ideology of Zionism, the movement for support of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. As the conspiracy theorists chiefly name countries outside that area, the usage of Zionist in this context is misleading, and intended to portray Jews as conspirators who aim to control the world, as in the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[4][5]

Source

Since you are still claiming that your theory is not racist, perhaps you are making similar claims but do not think they are the same? I want to make sure I am not mis-interpreting you.

I am going to move forward at this point and assume you are only implying a political movement so we get beyond the racist card.

You seem to want to debate the definition of conspiracy, nefarious and even what the MSM is. I don’t see the point in this. Sure, to simply conspire something can occur between two people but when you take it to the next level of a conspiracy theory that has historical implications, as we are talking about massive organizations involving religion, political parties and even secret societies. This is all beside the point though as you have already established you are talking about Jewish Zionists.

The most cohesive statement you have made during this debate is the following quote:

I believe a majority of people in this country would like the (news) media to be objective and tell the truth. They would want it to be a watchdog on the government. They want it to let us know who the crooks are and what they are up to. If the MSM was being used to lie us into wars, hide government wrongdoing, and hide corporate corruption a majority of people would see this as highly objectionable. I believe a majority of people already believe at least one of these are true. This is why the MSM is portrayed in a negative way for a majority of people. I provided one link previously to a poll. There are many other polls that verify this. The MSM is seen as a villain.

I agree with you up to a point here. Of course we want our news media to be objective and tell the truth and to be a watchdog for the government. I think it succeeds in this to a point and then we need to use our own knowledge and common sense after that. As I stated before, it has always been that way. You then go on to say that the MSM is seen as a villain and I am left to assume that you believe this because of your claim that it is controlled by Jewish Zionists. This is where we part in our views. I have not seen any proof whatsoever of this.

You have said more than once that you do not have to prove anything. However, this is what the debate is for. In my opinion you have not provided anything to prove your claim that the MSM is controlled by Jewish Zionists. I again challenge you to clearly define your theory and provide some sort of documentation or examples to back it up.

Hello Mods, I request an extension for the holidays before my final post.

BillfromCovina, I didn't see your post requesting to extend for the Holdiays before I replied. I would be happy to agree with that. Happy Holidays to you and your family also!

FINAL ARGUMENT

What is the nefarious conspiracy? The conglomeration of the media. Another description would be the centralization of the media. You agree that in your research you found this to be true. Westcoast post,

“Even so, I was surprised when I started researching this to find that the majority of all media outlets are controlled by less than ten corporations. “

The nefarious conspiracy is simple. You have failed to notice or to accept this as a conspiracy because of your extreme description of what a conspiracy is. A criminal conspiracy proven in a court would not meet all of your description. Westcoast post,

“I will give you my own personal definition of what this means to me. I believe that for there to be a conspiracy, it entails a cunning plot intentionally developed by a group of individuals with similar beliefs and agendas. It is typically secret, with a clear plan of action that involves manipulation that would otherwise not be allowed or tolerated if exposed. It needs to affect the general public or at least a large group of people and have far reaching repercussion. Most conspiracy theories are regarded as being ‘out there’ or on the ‘fringe’ because of their nature and outlandishness.”

I give you the example of a wife and boyfriend who conspire to kill the husband. It does not have to have similar motives. The wife’s motive could be to collect insurance money and the boyfriend’s could be because he is in love. It does not have to be cunning. It could be a very dumb plan.

Where does your description come from? Your description actually comes from the people who don’t want questions asked. It is used to marginalize people who question the official story by labeling them as kooks, crazies, out on the fringe and outlandish. Your tactics have been similar throughout. Avoid the issues and label me as racist. You try to appeal to people’s emotions by applying labels instead of talking about the issues. You even go so far as to say there is no point in defining a conspiracy, the meaning of nefarious, or Main Stream Media (MSM) because the issue is, from your implications, racism. Westcoast post,

” You seem to want to debate the definition of conspiracy, nefarious and even what the MSM is. I don’t see the point in this. Sure, to simply conspire something can occur between two people but when you take it to the next level of a conspiracy theory that has historical implications, as we are talking about massive organizations involving religion, political parties and even secret societies. This is all beside the point though as you have already established you are talking about Jewish Zionists.”

Westcoast post,”

Did you honestly expect to go with the controversial 'Zionist control our media/government' theory and NOT have the word racist come up?”

To even begin this debate, we have to define our terms. You do not want to play. And no I did not say Zionists control our government.

Why is the conglomeration and centralization of the media a conspiracy? I tried to talk about how it came about. The deregulation of the media is how it came about. I gave links that showed the various laws and regulations that were changed to allow this. You decide to ignore them. I tell you what the public reasons given by business and governmental interests were. My opening post, “We were told from the business community and government that this would give people more options and cheaper prices.” I provide a link to a news story, in my post on your failed answer to my question#3, to support this public reason and how the opposite has happened. You ignore the story and never discuss it. I ask if the opposite is happening does it make sense for there to be hidden plans and agendas. Since the public reason is a lie it is obvious there other reasons. Of course, you totally ignore this topic.

Do the conspirators make secret plans? I will reference only one meeting to back this up. The Bilderburg Group will have representatives from all my groups meeting. Yes even Jews. The content of these meetings are secret. Secret plans and discussions are a conspiracy. For many years, the very existence of this group and the meetings were denied by the MSM. It was only until very recently that the MSN even acknowledged its existence and these meeting. It was forced to do this because the alternative media was hot on its heels. Even though the MSM now acknowledges it, it is always mentioned with conspiracy theorists. Why? To marginalize those who ask questions about it. These secret plans by their very nature are a conspiracy. Even if you believe they are working for the good, it is still a conspiracy. Not a theory, a fact as defined by the word conspiracy. A conspiracy is defined as the act of conspiring together. To conspire means simply to plot or to plan together in secret. I have been using Wikipedia only because my opponent finds it acceptable. Wikipedia description of Bilderberg Group.

“The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and Media. The names of attendees are made available to the press.[1] The conferences are closed to the public and the media, and no press releases are issued.

Sourceen.wikipedia.org...
What does this description mean? People of influence in the Media attend but don’t discuss what has been talked about. This means conspiracy.

Who are the conspirators and why? To identify the conspirators I have to look to the top of this pyramid and identify who is on top. That is all I did. I have repeatedly stated that each group of conspirators can have a different motive for wanting the conglomeration or the centralization of the media. I do not know the real motives because I am not part of the conspiracy. I can only hypothesize the motives from the effects. I chose only the obvious motives from those on top and who have taken part.

The government’s motive is that it allows easier control of the press and manipulation of the public. I never stated that the government was controlled by Zionists, Jews or that Zionism was the conspiracy. I also did not state this was the government’s goal in this conspiracy.

I identified business and corporate interests. Not just the owners of the conglomerates but also those who advertise. Their motive is to make money. They will use the media to benefit them and their sponsors. They would kill stories that hurt them. They would be afraid to act as a watchdog over the government because of the government’s power to take money from them or to help make them money.

Why did I identify Jewish and Zionist interests? Again I looked at the top and who do I see. By stating Zionism, I associated those on the top by its effect and bias I see in the news. I never stated they were trying to change anyone’s religion. Any enemy of Israel is cast as evil and like Hitler. Westcoast, you yourself did this by mentioning Nazis with the Palestinians. This is an obvious conditioning effect of the MSM. We are constantly hearing the drumbeat of war with Iran. The MSM is trying to cast them as the villain. Could you imagine one of our major media outlets doing this to Israel? How the Israel military has threatened the capitols of European countries. It’s description of the Sampson option. The war crimes and atrocities against the Palestinians. Constant video footage of Israel destroying the homes of Palestinians because Jews from other countries believe they are special, have a right to their own homeland and this is the place. Could you imagine the MSM constantly telling us all the UN resolutions Israel is in violation of and how they won’t comply? My identification of Zionism and Jews is only that it biases the news in favor of Israel. This is not racism to point it out and is very obvious. If we have a black businessman who only allows black managers to make it to upper management, is it racist to point it out. It is not the one who points it out but the businessman who will only allow blacks to upper management that is the racist. Zionism by its very nature is racist. The establishment of Israel, as a Jewish homeland by its very nature is racist.

How is the conglomeration of the media or centralization of the media nefarious? I first established the companies involved in the conglomeration of the media. I then established that this conglomeration covers what is known collectively as the MSM. My opponent was deceitful in his definition from his source, having stopped on the sentence just shy from identifying it as large news conglomerates. Here again is the definition Wikipedia.

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. The term also denotes those media generally reflective of the prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity. Large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, which underwent successive mergers in the U.S. and elsewhere at an increasing rate beginning in the 1990s, are often referenced by the term. This consolidation of ownership has raised concerns of a progressive homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias.”

I then established that the MSM is viewed negatively. I provided a link to one poll previously. I provided a description of what the majority of people believe about the MSM and how they find many of its actions highly objectionable and unreliable. I stated that the MSM is seen as a villain. If a poll was taken of, “Do you view the MSM as a villain or friend?” A majority of people would vote that the MSM is a villain and see its actions at the very least highly objectionable. Again we have to take the view from the perspective of the majority. Westcoast post,

“Nefarious is defined as extremely wicked or villainous.”

Merriam- Webster defines villainous as: 1. befitting a villain 2. highly objectionable
Source

Thus we have our nefarious conspiracy. Most major news outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy. It is very simple. I have no idea if anyone is meeting in any rooms with cloaks and pentagrams.

I have never formally debated before or used the Socratic Method. I briefly looked it up and tried to apply the method. I did not have much time to prepare because by the time I noticed I was accepted, I was way overdue to post. My purpose was not to offend but to only lead people past their misconceptions and to take the first step in asking questions. I want to thank the judges and mods. I know it takes a lot of time in judging and coordinating these contests.
I leave everyone with the Secret Plan

FINAL ARGUMENT

I have to say that I am impressed with your ability to talk in circles and contort various sources of information to support your ever-changing theory. You might even win some debates with this method if your counterpart were not able to untangle your words to expose them for the double talk that they are. I will do my best.

I find it most interesting that you have chosen to wait until your closing argument to finally clearly state what your nefarious conspiracy theory is. Even though you later tried to add to the definition and change it up just enough to leave one again wondering what it really was. Typically you do this in the opening statement so that we can then go on to actually debate the points. I have been trying to drag this information out of you during this debate and it has left me wondering if you even really know what it is.

You finally said:

What is the nefarious conspiracy? The conglomeration of the media. Another description would be the centralization of the media.

You then went on to say that I had already agreed with this simply because I had said early on that during my research I had found that most of the major media outlets were owned by less than ten corporations. This is my first example or you twisting my words and your own information around to reflect your opinion rather than the facts. A conglomeration is actually a combination of two or more corporations that are engaged in entirely different businesses together into one corporate structure. This is where our different definitions of MSM are important. I think it is extremely obvious that mainstream media is so much more than just the news. You again accuse me of being deceptive because of this, but it is you that needs to narrow the definition to just the news outlets to make it easier to prove your points. I have already given you a detailed definition of media and I think anyone with a basic education understands that the media is any source of information of any kind that reaches the masses through any method.

You have also accused me more than once now of not completely answering one of your questions. I would like to clear this up.

You said:

The deregulation of the media is how it came about. I gave links that showed the various laws and regulations that were changed to allow this. You decide to ignore them.

And:

I provide a link to a news story, in my post on your failed answer to my question#3, to support this public reason and how the opposite has happened. You ignore the story and never discuss it.

This was the final part of my answer:

…these advances have also meant more government involvement for a number of reasons. One of those is to protect people’s interests and yes, control. Information is power and power is money. Again, I don’t disagree that having control over the media is a powerful thing. It is your job though to prove that there is in fact a nefarious conspiracy surrounding it.

You asked what I thought the governments given reasons for deregulation were and I told you. Again, just because you didn’t agree with me doesn’t mean I didn’t answer. Furthermore, I find it ironic that the source you provided to prove deregulation was actually an article about telecommunications. Here you are arguing that we should only be talking about news media and yet you give a telecommunications article as your only source.

In your closing argument you clearly say that your theory is the conglomeration and deregulation of the media and:

...I identified business and corporate interests. Not just the owners of the conglomerates but also those who advertise. Their motive is to make money. They will use the media to benefit them and their sponsors. They would kill stories that hurt them. They would be afraid to act as a watchdog over the government because of the government’s power to take money from them or to help make them money.

So now you are making it about government control to ultimately make money. This is good, except that even in your final argument it is literally surrounded and buried under other claims about the Jews. The following quotes are examples:

The Bilderburg Group will have representatives from all my groups meeting. Yes even Jews.

Why did I identify Jewish and Zionist interests? Again I looked at the top and who do I see. By stating Zionism, I associated those on the top by its effect and bias I see in the news. I never stated they were trying to change anyone’s religion. Any enemy of Israel is cast as evil and like Hitler.

We are constantly hearing the drumbeat of war with Iran. The MSM is trying to cast them as the villain. Could you imagine one of our major media outlets doing this to Israel? How the Israel military has threatened the capitols of European countries. It’s description of the Sampson option. The war crimes and atrocities against the Palestinians.

Finally, the one sentence that I think sums it all up:

The establishment of Israel, as a Jewish homeland by its very nature is racist.

Your comment, by its very nature is racist but of course you wouldn’t see that. You are the one that chose to take us down the Palestinian vs. Jews road. I was simply playing devil’s advocate to prove a point. Words are cheap and anybody can say anything. If you are going to rely upon such a hate-filled and tumultuous conflict than you need to be prepared to back it up. You have not done that.

So for my final argument I would like to concentrate upon the only things that you clearly stated as your theory. The conglomeration and deregulation of the media with the motive to control news stories and make money.I have said from the beginning that I do not deny that the centralization of major media outlets have occurred over time. I do not agree however that they are a conglomerate, as through my research I have found that while these corporations are massive, they are still all sources of media so by definition can’t be considered a conglomerate. The debate over that definition aside, even if it were true my opponent has in no way proven any kind of nefarious conspiracy.

The only sources provided were to a site called ‘Jew Watch’, which after looking over I quickly dismissed as anti-Semitic and without credibility. The other source which I already mentioned, to salon.com, was actually an article talking about telephone companies, not news outlets as you were claiming.

The only evidence provided for the argument of a nefarious conspiracy was to a poll. You stated that:

I have no problem believing that a vast majority close to 70% would chose these options. I reference the following poll.soonerpoll.com...

In your closing argument you said:

I then established that the MSM is viewed negatively. I provided a link to one poll previously. I provided a description of what the majority of people believe about the MSM and how they find many of its actions highly objectionable and unreliable. I stated that the MSM is seen as a villain.

If you go to the website that supposedly proves this, you find that it is actually an article about something else. This was a public opinion poll done over the phone with 1,000 people in Oklahoma. It was for the political race to find out how the liberals were voting. The question they were asked was “Do you have an overall positive or negative image perception of main-stream media?” To try and use this as an example of how the majority of Americans find the MSM to be villainous is completely ludicrous.

You then went on to use the Bilderberg group as part of your nefarious conspiracy. To bring them up now in your final argument is a little late in the game I think. It would have been a good argument for the beginning. We could easily conduct a whole debate over the subject. The most accepted story is that it was founded in 1952 by the Prince of the Netherlands and the Belgium Prime Minister. It has professed to be a think-tank for the leading European and American leaders to work out their differences. It is easy for any conspiracy theorist to try and apply the “Evil Bildergerg group” as part of the masterminds behind their curtain due to the evolution of the organization and its secrecy. I’m sorry though, for this alone doesn’t prove anything to me.

I have agreed all along that the majority of mainstream media is controlled by some top ten corporations. I have even agreed that there has to be a certain amount of government and political involvement given the nature of these corporations. There is a massive amount of money involved and money equals power. I assert however that this has always been the case. As our sources of media have grown so have these corporations and so has their power. It has become harder for the general public to ascertain which outlets to follow to get the most concise information. But is there a conspiracy involving these giants? I wouldn’t be surprised to find out if one or more of them were involved to some degree in some sort of conspiracy to gain either more political power or money. The point of this debate though was to prove that there was in fact a nefarious conspiracy involving most of the mainstream media. I do not feel that this was even close to being proven.

I have tried to outline here in my closing argument my opponent’s attempts to manipulate information taken from my own comments and outside sources to form his own interpretation rather than what is accurate. I give him credit for being good at talking in circles and confusing the reader as to what has really been said. I hope that I have clarified my stance.

To simply state through inaccurately quoted sources that the majority of the public finds the media to be highly objectionable and then contort that definition to mean villainous so it can be called nefarious is not only a stretch but falls far short of proving anything. I appreciate this opportunity to enter into a debate but find your tactics very convoluted and misleading.

So in closing I would like to say that while I, like so many others, question the integrity of our MSM, I do not think that BillfromCovina has in any way proven that; “Most major media outlets are controlled by a nefarious conspiracy.”

And this one is off to the judges.

Westcoast has won and will advance to Round 2

This was a tough one to judge, primarily because the debate was largely off topic. While I can see that Jewish influence is true enough, I did not see why it was relevant as it certainly negates much of the other influences upon our media.

I finished this debate feeling a bit ripped off as there was much potential for a discussion on what purpose the media serves and how it is interpreted. There was much potential to discuss how military actions influence the media.

In the end, while I feel westcoast could have done a better job by not feeding into the 'racist' segue, he does get the nod. BillfromCovina, while providing a decent enogh argument, never really defined nefarious and how it applies on a social level.

westcoast gets my vote.