First of all, reputable news organizations should be citing their sources for things which require sources. If the president says something, they don't need to cite the first person who reported on the quote, but if ABC has an anonymous source who says "x", anyone reporting on "x" should be citing ABC.

That said, the reason I don't accept Youtube video's goes beyond citing sources. The type of content you find on Youtube is virtually never "Here are the facts", it is typically "Here is my personal opinion and interpretation of the facts". I am not having an argument with Laura Ingraham, so I don't really care what her opinion is. I also find her to be as intelligent as a bag of potatoes, but that is beside the point. If you post a ten minute video, you are asking me to wade through what is likely to be 9 minutes of babbling and spin around 1 minute of "fact". All I care about is the facts of the case. It is up to the individual making the argument to contextualize those facts and explain how they relate to the argument.

I've said it before, but an argument has three facets:
1) The hypothesis
2) The evidence
3) The explanation of how that evidence proves the hypothesis

What I ask is that an individual actually do the work to create a coherent argument. Simply saying "Biden Bad" and then posting a Youtube video states a hypothesis and then posts video footage of some blowhard doing the rest. I can't take that seriously as an argument and more often than not, it is just a waste of my time. When an individual decides to be lazy and not do the work to formulate an argument, why should I waste my own time trawling through ten minutes of garbage to try to figure out what their point may have been?

While I typically also wouldn't prefer a blog post regarding someone's opinions, at least with a blog post, I can skim through it in a minute or so to figure out if there is anything worth responding to.

Damn Democrats.  Always holding people accountable for what they say instead of assuming there is hidden context that makes the stupid thing the person said actually not stupid. 

In the most recently posted vid, the journalist mentions where he got the info and who he spoke to. He even mentions he's after the Gov docs to finalize some theories based on gathered evidence, and they won't give them up so he has to sue to get them. Now it's not super clear like on paper so it can be easily fact checked, but like how the MSM constantly reports on many things, like the Russia probe for example, based on what they've been able to gather up until the point in time they decide to present it, asap, I don't see how this is any different.

Will it be proven to be false in due time like how some of the things the MSM presents does? Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to see. Would you rather the news only tell known facts that can't change or be proven false with more time? Don't the people deserve to know what's going on in their country asap, especially if it's their own Gov corruption, supposedly?

It seems clear to me that offering info through YouTube is like telling someone you think there's a conspiracy going on. That almost always get's labelled as a 'conspiracy theory' and is automatically assumed to be nonsense, like what's coming from YouTube, apparently. I'm not trying to say YouTube in general is niche enough and has a long history and a solid track record, but you shouldn't just disregard info because it's coming from that source within YouTube. If the info is found to be bogus, or the source is always B.S, then you would have a much stronger case as to why you don't believe it.

It's not like the MSM isn't like YouTube either. They are mostly all under larger parents companies, like how all the channels are under YouTube. Why do you think news from 'completely different' MSM stations is constantly the same, breaking at the same time, and often told in the same manner, and sometimes the same wording and catch phrases? It's all coming from the same parent source. The story and how to tell it. Don't think, just do.

Well I'd at least give someone the 4 or 5 mins they have to get their post straight, before the asterisk shows up to show changes were made to the post. Always assuming the worst in people isn't a great way to go through life. Giving the benefit of the doubt tends to work out best. There's this place called America that's trying it as we speak. It's worked out pretty good for them so far. No guarantee's though.

Great, feel free to post a quotation from the video with a time stamp. With that information, formulate an argument explaining the evidence and how you are using that evidence to prove your point that Biden committed some wrongdoing.

Again, all I'm asking is that you do the work in constructing your own arguments.

EDIT: Seems like your source may also be somewhat of a hack too:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy

That's partially the point of the video though, and video in general. Part of the reason for putting LOTR in film is because people weren't going to read the books.

If you don't want to go through what I've put up, that's fine, you can disregard it. Doesn't matter to me. It all ties together though so that would mean writing out the whole thing and that's not going to happen. If that's not good enough for you then that's your choice. Do I think it would change your mind anyway?

The guy could be a hack, which may mean it's false, like I've mentioned, but a few articles from biased sources, shouldn't completely change anyone's mind.

I do find it intriguing who seems to tend to ask for me to do more and more work though. Maybe it's just me.

As previously stated, all I ask is that an individual constructs and presents their own argument. So far, all you've done is say "Biden Bad" and post YouTube videos. That isn't an argument. I will gladly entertain you if you wish to actually present an argument, but I am not going to do the work for you.

If you don't wish to present an argument, there's nothing for me to do here. Yes, presenting an argument is work, but if you don't want to do work to make your points, you don't really have a place in a debate.

Who initiated a debate, acknowledged it, and agreed to it?

I'm not the fact police. I'm not coming for you if you don't like what I'm doing. You're free to do as you wish within reason, rules, and the law, as so am I. Each person has their own way of doing things, and that's fine for the most part. Good luck with your pursuit of truth in this one.

Two straight days of Eric wasting everyone's time. He doesn't believe anything he says, guys, or care what he's saying, he just says it to waste your time because he doesn't care if Trump declared martial law tomorrow and massacred all the liberals, he'd still support him. As sundin has pointed out, Eric isn't even saying anything or trying to argue a point anymore. Stop wasting your time, stop talking to him.

At some point Eric you have to recognize when you are getting schooled.  It would be very hard to debate what Sundin already posted but you are really just looking bad trying to waffle your way around it.  You ignore his points, you cannot argue his facts and you post bs opinion videos as if they are somehow relevant.  Then you get on this high horse because you are trying to argue a losing point and looking bad.  At some point it is wise to pull out instead of doing the Trump and double down on crap.  Oh well, have fun continuing trying to work Sundin but its not looking good for you.

It's unfortunate you 'all' are 'forced' to 'put up with this', including myself.

Could you two please summarize your points? They're kinda long and I don't have all day to go through them. 

Hopefully this one is short enough. Why is Biden so reluctant to answer the question? It's not a trick or gotcha, just a typical question.

"I'm not going to"? Wait a minute, you can refuse to answer a question you don't want to, and yet still be considered legit?

I thought I saw something recently that said that can't be the case...