Okay… let’s play this game. I want you to go ahead and prove these “facts” of yours for me. Give me unbiased sources that provide empirical evidence to support your claim.
EDIT: Note how throughout the rest of this conversion, this person failed to answer the question, and tried several times to distract by trying to make be defend a point that wasn’t necessary to defend. This is what they do.
You first. Please present your empirical evidence from completely unbiased sources for your claims:
Because sensationalism creates ad revenue.
and
So the news you receive from any side of any story is going to try and make you as angry/scared as possible so you’re more apt to share it and spread the word
and
they then use the page bits and time spent on their sites to generate more ad revenue.
and
tankie, far-left, liberal, democratic, conservative, republican, and MAGA-affiliated sites. They’re guaranteed to not be honest with you
and
stick with independent and unbiased sources like Reuters and Associated Press.
(Here present empirical evidence from unbiased source for the claim that these networks are independent, for the claim they’re unbiased, and for the claim that you should stick with them).
Go on, practice what you preach, don’t just be a bad faith hypocrite who’s bigmad that his own personal bias isn’t unquestionably accepted as gospel truth.
That might be how you kids play in .ml, but here we play by the “I asked you first” rule. Which is especially relevant considering how all you have at your disposal is distractions and derailment.
Answer the question or admit that like all the others, you are nothing more than a debate troll.
Yeah… there no point it discussing this with you.
Average liberal when presented with facts.
Okay… let’s play this game. I want you to go ahead and prove these “facts” of yours for me. Give me unbiased sources that provide empirical evidence to support your claim.
EDIT: Note how throughout the rest of this conversion, this person failed to answer the question, and tried several times to distract by trying to make be defend a point that wasn’t necessary to defend. This is what they do.
Lol. So not Reuters or AP then.
Either back up your claim or walk away.
You first. Please present your empirical evidence from completely unbiased sources for your claims:
and
and
and
and
(Here present empirical evidence from unbiased source for the claim that these networks are independent, for the claim they’re unbiased, and for the claim that you should stick with them).
Go on, practice what you preach, don’t just be a bad faith hypocrite who’s bigmad that his own personal bias isn’t unquestionably accepted as gospel truth.
That might be how you kids play in .ml, but here we play by the “I asked you first” rule. Which is especially relevant considering how all you have at your disposal is distractions and derailment.
Answer the question or admit that like all the others, you are nothing more than a debate troll.
Please provide empirical evidence from an unbiased source
Please provide empirical evidence from an unbiased source
Bahahaha. Are you literally a child?
Thanks for proving my point. You have nothing.
Walk away.