debate.org is a good source of information

Resolution:"Debate.org is a good source of information" information:" Information (shortened as info or info.) is that which informs, i.e. that from which data can be derived. Information is conveyedeither as the content of a message or through direct or indirect observation of some thing. That which is perceived can be construed as a message in its own right, and in that sense, information is always conveyed as the content of a message. Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation. For example, information may be encoded intosigns, and transmitted via signals.The resolution is such that con must show debate.org is not a good source of information.Now, I'm not completely sure what con means by good here, but I shall assume it means "credible"Tecnically all of the internet is a good place to get information. con says: "All deate.org is are people who get on their computers and answer other people answers which sometimes have nothing to do in the real world and 99% of the time its just peoples opinions" I'm not sure, maybe because I'm high,, but I am pretty sure that debate.org does not equal " people who get on their computers and answer other people answers which sometimes have nothing to do in the real world and 99% of the time its just peoples opinions".X= Debate.OrgY= "people who get on their computers and answer other people answers which sometimes have nothing to do in the real world and 99% of the time its just peoples opinions""X is a domain name which donotes the address at which a site be located in regards to the internet, at which debating occurs.Y is certainly not equal to x.(Because Y is not debate.org)By what mathematical formula did you deduce 99%. I'm not sure what study you or your PhD coleague's conducted, but it is not currently in any journal of behavorial analysis or sociology or any social science journal. " general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e.based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts."However, it is not the case that opinions are inherently a gateway to poor or inccurate information.X is true or false(by law of excluded middle)Person A can have the opinion of X being true or falseAt random, person X has a 50% probability of being correct in their assessment of information being fact, that's way higher than your connotative 1% probability, derived from your "99% opinion" statement, in which the statement indicates that users will be wrong 99% of the time(100-99=1).Users also often provide cited sources of information(many of which are scholarly journals or information derived and condensed from the former).Also by what metric did you deduce that they have nothing to do In the real worlds?A) The world(I am assuming means the same as "universe") is all of space and timeB) The internet is the result of space and timeC)) The internet is soemthing to do in the real world.Real shall mean " having an actual being or existence)A: A is true by definition,however I shall qualify this notion by propising the truism that, if something exists, it exist in space and time.One would not say X exists in no space or time.B) The internet is a digital construction, which is the resutl of various wiring and coding, which at their core are physical.(Prima facie this seems to be a composition fallacy, but it is not necessarily the case. For example if all the floor tiles are grey, then you have a grey floor.) C) I don't know what a not real world is.I suppose I could possibly imagine a world that is subjectively real but bot objectivre.The internet must necessarily be something to do in the real world because. it;s a logical incomprehensibility to propose that real users act in non-real worlds.Conclusions:So your epistemological entailment that user's opinions are not information, (whichthey areby definition), is false and furthermore youre unwarranted assertion that user's opinion's shall necessariliy entail incorrect statemens or falsitites, is of its self--invalidated.I look forward to con's rebuttals, and defenses.May I please implore you to please excuse any spelling/grammar errors I have, I am quie hgih..)I should also ask con to be more precise and less vague in his assertions and semantic predilections of words,so that I may formulate apt counter rebuttal and so that I amy reemain topical in all instances.back to Con <3 ^.^Sources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...