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.
Lol, poor baby shitlib is throwing a tantrum at the idea of being held to their own standards. Then again, your whole ideology only works when you don’t hold yourself to your own own standards, so I’m not surprised you start acting like an insecure teenager trying to act tough when called out on it
says the .ml debate troll that was asked to answer a simple question to support their false accusations- refused to, and was then shown the door.
Again, thanks for playing. Walk away now.
EDIT: This is where they ran out of ways to avoid answering the question and resorted to responding with an emoji (they ironically chose a projector) to signify that they admittedly have no proof to support their false-accusation.
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.
Lol, poor baby shitlib is throwing a tantrum at the idea of being held to their own standards. Then again, your whole ideology only works when you don’t hold yourself to your own own standards, so I’m not surprised you start acting like an insecure teenager trying to act tough when called out on it
says the .ml debate troll that was asked to answer a simple question to support their false accusations- refused to, and was then shown the door.
Again, thanks for playing. Walk away now.
EDIT: This is where they ran out of ways to avoid answering the question and resorted to responding with an emoji (they ironically chose a projector) to signify that they admittedly have no proof to support their false-accusation.
📽️