Most major news networks are racist toward white people.

It is clear that, at this point in the debate, we have just proven that my opponent has adopted the post-truth mindset that many other politicians (including our very own president-elect) has brought to light. Let me explain.Let it first be recognized that my opponent spent the entirety of the last round responding to my arguments. None of his arguments are actually extended.Nevertheless, here is my rebuttal.R1: Truth in the Media, and How My Opponent Misunderstands It"True" is a term my opponent seems to throw around aimlessly in order to garner some sort of legitimacy. It fails to substantiate his claims.I have explained quite clearly what opinion-based journalism is and how it differs from fact-based journalism. My opponent even acknowledges that opinion-based journalism exists. However, he fails to see why this distinction matters. Opinion-based journalism lays no claim to objectivity. That means that it is that opinion-based journalism does not necessarily have a factual basis. I admit a lot of opinion-based journalism (take The O'Reilly Factor, for instance) is not factual at all.The fact of the matter is that my opponent is using opinion-based pieces in order to justify an attack on fact-based media. That simply does not compute. The sites that my opponent uses to collect his so-called evidence share in advocating for a certain right-wing agenda that completely exposes the hypocrisy at the very core of my opponent's argument. Pro is using biased media outlets to claim that mainstream outlets are biased. You simply cannot factually support the claim that the mainstream media is racist if your only evidence is an angry middle-aged man behind a computer screen that just so happens to agree with you.R2: The Hypocrisy of "Probable Outcomes"Yet another dilemma at the core of my opponent's argument, that he just so conveniently exposes for us all to see."The most recent attack on white America was in the latest terror attack here in the States at Fort Lauderdale Airport. If the facts were given as facts and not as "probable outcomes" we wouldn't be assuming that the shooter was white as CNN had originally suggested he was." Oh, so the media shouldn't jump to conclusions...From R2: "When it is obvious the shootings or bombings were being carried out in the name of Islam and the attacker or attackers are Muslim, the media feels the need to wait and collect all the facts before jumping to conclusions."My opponent simply needs to decide which side he's on. Should they "wait and collect all the facts" as they do in cases of terrorism? Or should they simply state the facts, as evidently they were immediately "obvious" in the Ft. Lauderdale shooting....Clearly, Pro is simply picking through specific situations, cherry by cherry, and then framing them as he'd like by showering us with opinion-based far-right journalism to supposedly substantiate these positions. It simply makes no sense, and does not prove anything about the nature of mainstream media. His arguments only seem to prove that a couple people writing for far-right news sites think that CNN is out to get them.R3: Just Some More Useless, Baseless and Absurd AccusationsLet's just go through some of the ridiculously baseless things my opponent has said during this round, that neither advances his position nor garners him any credibility..."when in reality it's just made up stories to fit a mostly leftist agenda. Most of these agendas are aimed at the middle class and wealthy middle aged white man."What IS your reality? Is it what you have read on all these sites you are citing? Because that's just as bad as what you claim the mainstream media is fobbing us off with. And, again, no evidence. No agendas evident as of yet."The most recent attack on white America was in the latest terror attack here in the States at Fort Lauderdale Airport."Sorry, what is white America? Is it some country I've never heard of? And what does an "attack on white America" have to do with the "racist mainstream media'?"Labeling someone a "white Hispanic" doesn't really seem too logical, since it doesn't really matter what shade of Hispanic the shooter was. It's the leftist media bias that thinks it's important."Ummm... white Hispanic? That sounds like profiling of Hispanics, if anything. Not racism towards whites."By not covering stories of terror acted out in the name of Islam (mostly perps of middle eastern decent) and trying to show the attackers in a more understanding light, they are showing their bigotry."First of all, I don't call circulating the terrorists' pictures and reporting for days on attacks like the Paris attacks "not covering" these events. Secondly, since when is bigotry being "understanding"? Since when is bigotry being sensible, and reasonable? This is ludicrous.-------My opponent lacks credibility. He has completely botched his entire argument by using sources which are biased at their core and only serve to advance an agenda. It is pure, unbridled hypocrisy.