The underlying premise of this is that "the left" and "the right" are, at a minimum, equivalent in terms of merit, or "the right" is actually superior. Otherwise there is no bias, unless you consider it biased to reject ideas, policies, ideologies that are without merit (which would not be a credible position). So the question is, do you personally consider "the right" to be equivalent or better than "the left"?Also, the bolded is just more anonymous authority fallacy, also referred to as "weasel words". The bolded is contradicted by this My explanation for this ties into my first observation in this post. You want Trump to "win", more specifically, you already plan on arguing that Trump won, and this is the set-up... you dial the expectations on Hillary up way high, so that you can easily point out how she failed to live up to them... while simultaneously lowering the expectations on Trump. I say this because as I have shown, you already downplayed Hillary's debating skills in another thread... but in this thread you are trying to sell her as a "great debater"... You completely flip your presentation of Hillary depending on what narrative you are trying to advance at the time.
So since this is a predictions thread... here is my prediction... The bit I highlighted above in red is correct. You are correct. "Advocates will advocate." You are a Trump advocate and after the debate, you will advocate the position that Trump won/met expectations while Hillary lost/failed to live up to expectations/put Trump away, etc...