Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.
He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.
Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisons
Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.
but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.
Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?
No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:
Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16]
There are plenty of good ways to address this position. You could argue that a single incident does not prove a broader trend. You could argue that that there was some good reason for them to use charged language when referring to Trump's cages, but to stop referring to them as such when Trump stopped being responsible for them. You could make a nuanced point about the differences between opinion writing and statistical data. Christ, there are
so many angles here that don't boil down to "b-but this sentence came from a bad website!"
Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.
Until this moment, it really looked like you're defending Saddam's position. I now understand that you aren't, so this is either a presentation issue on your part, or a reading comprehension issue on mine.
Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?
Hopefully done above, but just in case: "Conservapedia bad" is not, by itself, a refutation of the claim of "The choice of words in these articles is evidence of The Hill's liberal bias".