[RebelWithanAK]

I'm proposing a system to cite sources so as to back up facts on which one's opinions are based. I'm claiming that currently the sources are either not cited, or are biased themselves. One is always entitled to his opinion, which is why you can't debate opinions. You can, however, debate the facts and statistics they're based upon and draw conclusions from that. You just listed the various styles of conclusions, or as you call them hypotheses and relationships. Let us say that, hypothetically, we start with an opinion:

"the media is biased to the left."

which was drawn from one's interpretation of some facts or statistics:

"lexis-nexis shows more references to 'right-wing' than 'left-wing' which places journalists closer in league with the left"

which itself is based on several hypotheses and assumptions:

We assume the politicians would be evenly spread across the political spectrum. (and thus there really aren't more right-wing politicians than left-wing politicians)
We posit that journalists all view themselves as moderate. (and thus others are either referred to as to the left or the right of them)
We assume that there is no bias in the editorial process. (as thus the editors share the same views as the journalists)

Those can be debated, and thus can undermine the conclusion. Or we can debate the bias of the organization that did the study, or put in competing evidence and debate the value of that. I'm sure I'm saying the same thing as you, but in different words, but I'm just saying we can develop and enforce a system where evidence must be given and subsequently weighed.

And how was my list biased? Either you don't view the Washington Times as biased to the right, or you do view the New York Times as biased to the left, or something else...