The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate.

I will number each accusation of dishonesty for clarity. I'd ask that Pro please respond to the numbered arguments accordingly, so that we can keep track of the separate accusations. I would also like to ask that since some of these contentions are either completely irrelevant (based on dropped arguments) or just so easily refuted by me, that my opponent please consider eliminating many of them in future rounds for the sake of brevity. It's already absurd that he felt the need to have a 21K+ character first round. As someone pointed out in the comments section, this doesn't seem like a "legitimate need" to utilize the character limit glitch but I digress. I ask that he pease only keep the accusations - and identify them by number - that he truly feels are important to establishing his case. The vast majority of these are indisputably in my favor. Good luck. 1. My opponent begins by suggesting that I used the tactic of lawyering. Apparently this refers to relying on semantics or "dishonest technicalities," such as one to prove something that should be considered obvious (eg. the grass is green). I reject the notion that I've relied on these tactics to win our former debate. Of course, you'll notice that my opponent did not at all explain how I allegedly lawyered in his first accusation; he simply copy and pasted our exchange (he also manipulated our actual conversation). To me, it's blatantly obvious that my opponent's rebuttal did not at all address my argument. As such, I simply pointed that out and explained why his rebuttal was insufficient and/or irrelevant. I will explain it again here: Pro points out that my argument was "None of [these] qualities are exclusive to heterosexuals. There seem to be no qualifications of a good parent that a gay person can not possess." His first response was, "Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case. If you are saying that it is 'possible' that gays can raise well adjusted children, I point out that it is also possible that beating kids is a good method for discipline." He was essentially arguing that just because it's possible for gay people to have certain traits, doesn't mean that gay people necessarily do have those traits. However... that was not my argument. Pro is using a blatant strawman. In his copy and pasting of our dialog, Pro completely left out my Round 3 rebuttal in which I explained why his argument did not address mine. What I said in response to his accusation that I was exploiting the word "can" in R3 is that he needed to provide the specific qualities of good parenting that explicitly pertain to heterosexuals. After all, my argument was that there weren't any good parenting qualities that heterosexuals posess that gay people do not (on balance) possess -- NOT that gay people can have good parenting qualities. Those are 2 totally different positions, and Pro only responded to the latter which is irrelevant. I said that there is no good parenting trait that a straight person can have that a gay person can not also have. Of course no gay or straight person will have every good parenting trait. This entire debate is about generalities. If his argument was that only straight people could be trustworthy, I would refute that. If his argument was that only males (fathers) can teach/ play sports with their son, I would have refuted that as well. The fact is, Pro simply failed to address my contention, which called for him to provide at least 1 single trait of good parenting that gay poeple can not emulate. Since he could not, I was right to keep extending the argument and noting that my opponent failed to refute my contention. There was no lawyering. This accusation is negated. 2. Next, Pro says that I used an irrelevant study that talked about the differences between two-parent households vs. single-parent households. I never denied this. My explanation as for why this was pertinent to my side is that having two parents is simply better than having one (Pro agreed) as the study indicated. That was never in dispute. I never used this study to confirm that two gay parents were better than having a single parent as Pro is accusing. Once again, this is a blatant strawman. Instead, my point in highlighting the study on two parents vs. one was that every single benefit included in that study as for why two parents were better than one could be emulated or achieved by gay couples just as well as straight couples. In order to combat this, Pro would have had to pick something out of that study that proved only a male/female dynamic could achieve the benefits mentioned in the article (dual income, more support, etc.) - or that a male/female dynamic would be more likely to emulate certain characteristics compared to gay couples. Of course, Pro could not pick a single thing from the study that explained why the second parent had to be opposite-sex in order for the benefits of two parents to apply or even be more likely. As you can see, nothing about this argument was dishonest. It's a great argument for my side. Once again, Pro simply failed to comprehend the necessary requirements to refute my point.Of course there aren't any, because my argument was valid. This accusation has been negated. 3. It intrigues me how Pro can throw around random accusations of fallacious reasoning without ever trying to remotely explain how his accusations apply. For instance, his third accusation is that I used smoke and mirror tactics when talking about anecdotal evidence. In Pro noting that anecdotal evidence ought to be taken with a grain of salt in this debate - and I agreed - I responded by saying my point was that in neither studies nor individual interviews that I came across in my research provided an example of specific qualities that only heterosexual parenting could provide, or that gay parenting did in GENERAL not provide (making the word can irrelevant). Pro responded, "Just because someone can turn out well adjusted, it does not follow that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence." He then points out my rebuttal, which was, "The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees." Pro says, "This is an obvious smoke-and-mirror tactic." Ladies and gentlemen, Pro cannot simply assert that a smoke and mirror tactic was used. That is completely false, hence why he provided exactly zero explanation as for how this tactic is allegedly in place. My rebuttal was completely legitimate and Pro failed to address it. I stand by it 100 percent. He said that kids with gay parents CAN turn out fine, and I pointed out that likewise, kids with straight parents CAN turn out fine. The point is that we are arguing based on generalities. Instead of responding to the actual argument - that kids with gay parents such as the one I referenced typically acknowledge that they aren't missing out on anything - Pro decided to once again attack the word "can." As you can see, Pro was completely desperate to make it seem as if I was exploiting the resolution instead of trying to make a good rebuttal to my contentions. To combat the notion that kids with gay parents were missing out, Pro should have provided specific (including anecdotal) or even theoretical examples of things that kids with gay parents GENERALLY miss out on. Instead, he focused on the fact that kids with gay parents CAN be raised just as well, instead of arguing that they are generally NOT raised just as well. This is simply a testament to Pro's lack of skill as a debater, and not me being dishonest. This accusation is negated. 4. Next, Pro brings up my argument regarding gay parents intentionally choosing to have kids compared to the chance of unexpected pregnancy that heterosexuals experience. This entire accusation is a complete waste of the audience's time and should immediately be dropped. Here's how the dialog went down: Me: Gay parents tend to exude greater commitment and more involvement considering 50% of heterosexual's pregnancy's are unplanned. Him: This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship... Me: Basically Con just negated the entire idea that gays would make subpar parents due to potential depression (as he insinuated at the beginning of the debate). If Con doesn't think we should consider this fact, then Con cannot take anecdotal instances of depression or any negative factor and apply it to gay parenting as a whole. Instead, we must look at how one's sexuality in general affects the ability to parent. I will agree to drop this contention on the basis that Con's response to it has negated several of his own arguments anyhow. First of all, my explanation makes perfect sense. Earlier in the debate, Pro said that some kids with gay parents suffered from depression. I pointed out that it was possible but not the norm. In response to this contention, Pro acknowledges that unplanned pregnanices and the subsequent lack of attention or care was also possible but not the norm. My response was that we must focus on the norms only, and not only what is possible. Hence, I agreed to drop the argument all-together, but pointed out why this response from Pro also negated his argument about anecdotal depression. He agreed and dropped that point as well. As you can see, this makes complete and perfect sense. The fact that I agreed to drop that argument - and Pro is bringing it up here when I agreed to concede it entirely given his concession of the depression argument - is just unnecessary. It should be obvious to the audience that Pro just simply could not comprehend what I was talking about. He said, "I don't understand my opponent's response here at all. Unintended pregnancy is linked to numerous maternal and child health problems, and it is certainly not an unavoidable risk in all heterosexual relationships. I am arguing that homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. Both are inherent problems in that entire style of relationship. I don't know why Pro seems to think this is self-contradictory." Clearly, his response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in the previous round: that if Pro intended to use anecdotal instances of depression of kids with gay parents, that I could use anecdotal evidence to prove that unplanned pregnancies (which account for half of heterosexual pregnancies) tend to result in subpar parenting compared with planned pregnancies, as almost all gay pregnancies are. In the end, we both agreed to drop anecdotal arguments, so Pro is completely wasting our time with this bogus accusation. This too has been negated. 5. Honestly, I am truly baffled by some of the arguments Pro is suggesting were dishonest. He next talks about how I explained that what a parent does in the bedroom has little to no bearing on their ability to parent effectively; instead what's important is the attention and care that a child receives. By his own admission, Pro completely failed to make a rebuttal to this point. When I pointed that out, he said he didn't have to because it was irrelevant and unnecessary to his argument. On the contrary, Pro had a responsibility to respond because it was a contention for MY case. If Pro didn't negate it (and he didn't), then it counts as a point in my favor. My point - as I repeated - was that since what a parent does in the bedroom has no relevance to parenting capabilities, that who one chooses to have sex with (the only differentiation between gay and straight people!) has no relevance to parenting capabilities. This was one of the most important arguments of my case, and Pro never negated this in our entire debate. There is nothing dishonest about this contention, though Pro is telling a bold faced lie in suggesting that my bringing up his lack of rebuttal was irrelevant. Clearly it helps establish my case. 6. Pro notes, "She was essentially saying that any role model, whether an uncle, friend, teacher, babysitter, or just a guy down the street could replace a father. I pointed out how ridiculous that was because fathers have a paternal instinct and in general care for their children more than someone else would. This is extremely obvious and should require no studies or evidence to back it up any more than the existence of the moon does. Why did she demand one? It was an attempt to distract me and the voters and avoid giving a genuine response." It's completely untrue that my intention was to distract Pro and the audience. It's also ludacris to suggest that Pro not have to back up a broad psychological assertion without any evidence. Sorry, but asking for sources is not lawyering. Even if Pro's assertions were accurate (and paternal instincts definitely exist), I needed to see the specific points mentioned in a given study to explain that while a father might have certain biological compulsion for care giving, that kids with gay parents would not necessarily miss out. Biological ties alone do not signify good parenting traits, as evidenced by the millions of children with absent fathers. Pro has to explain that biological ties were significant determining factors in one's ability to parent. I explicitly stated in R3, "Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. He presented a study that demonstrated the quality of care infants receive affecting their development. This source never said that the care had to come from biological parents. The same thing applies to Con"s other sources-- the study indicating the benefits of rough and tumble play never mentioned the importance of the father figure"s DNA. Instead it noted the benefits of the interaction, but did not discount the same benefits from similar interaction experienced by kids with two moms or two dads" As you can see, this was entirely relevant to my case as it effectively argued against one of my opponent's contentions of the importance of a biological mother and father (or rather, inability for a non-biological parent to replicate similar benefits). Pro was absolutely responsible for providing evidence to back up his assertions of biological necessity or even staggering relevance, as my role in the debate was to specifically argue against that notion. Moreover, saying biological ties were crucial to Pro's argument means that a mother-father dynamic of non-biological parents (such as adoptive parents) would not be any better than gay couples raising a child, or gay couples where one parent is biologically related to the child. Yes, mothers and fathers are biologically inclined to take care of their kids, but just because adoptive parents (for instance) aren't biologically related to their children, doesn't mean they can't (or don't, in general) provide the same type of guidance or benefits to their children as actual biological parents do. Similarly, gay couples - even if not biologically related to their children - can and do provide similar parenting traits, and even try to incorporate both sexes in the child-raising process. There was not a single shred of dishonesty on my part here. Pro is grasping at straws, and this accusation is negated several times over, both here and in the actual debate. 7. Me: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited specifically to the parents. [MouthWash] must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior. Him: I have stated, very clearly, that it was an unhealthy relationship and the lack of a father or a mother that affected children. Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it. He was basically saying that a lack of both a mother and a father negatively affected children, irregardless of the parent's sexuality. I was not dishonest in suggesting that A) this rebuttal was problematic for Pro's case, and B) that he failed to address the environment aspect of raising a child. The latter is obvious, and the problematic relevance of his rebuttal is that saying sexuality is irrelevant supports other aspects of my case. In particular, it highlights that Pro failed to prove specific traits or qualities that kids with same-sex parents miss out on based on stereotypical gender roles. This is important because general or presumed gender roles of heterosexuals are not the same as the gender stereotypes we apply to gay couples. For instance, if Pro had argued that women provide a certain element of femininty, I would have proven that gay men, on balance, also typically exude a certain element of femininty. As such, Pro couldn't argue "Having a father is important because they tend to provide rough and tumble play." If the father was gay, chances are he wouldn't provide rough and tumble play because he might be more feminine, meaning his sex alone (having a male father) would be irrlevant and undermine Pro's contention. On that same token, many lesbians are more masculine than typical females and therefore would be likely to provide rough-and-tumble play just as a father might. Let us not forget that I've also argued on the basis that male/female bonding need not be from a biological mother and father, but I digress. More importantly, my opponent cannot assert that I was dishonest by failing to understand his point the first time around. It happens in debates all the time. Going forward, we did talk about his actual point (that sex and not sexuality was relevant). I dismantled it. 8. Regarding my argument about gay kids being teased, Pro's inability to follow a coherent debate structure may have caused some confusion. In the first round, my point #6 was that kids with gay parents being teased was not a good argument against same-sex parenting and I explained why (I had assumed Pro would make that contention). In the next round, Pro responded, "Are you serious? Please give me a little more credit than that." However, he failed to adhere to the structuring that I used for clarity by failing to specifically indicate which of my contentions he was responding to numerically, so I may have glossed over this while writing my rebuttal. Regardless, my point stands. I wrote in R3 that "Potentially teasing the kids is a terrible and irrelevant contention [against gay parenting]... Con dropped this, so he must agree." This is not dishonest; Con did drop it as I expected him to either respond in agreement that it was irrelevant, OR argue that it was relevant. Con insists that he was "strawmanned." Apparently he doesn't know what a strawman is. Using a strawman is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument. On the contrary, I never said that this was my opponent's argument. I said that it was MY argument, so clearly I didn't strawman. Pro is basically name dropping fallacies to find excuses for his loss. While at best you can argue that I made an honest (not dishonest) mistake in suggesting Pro didn't respond to my argument, it's A) untrue that I strawmanned him in any way, and B) an irrelevant point because Pro did in fact seem to agree with my argument in the first place (hence him saying he didn't intend to argue that teasing was relevant). 9. Once again, MouthWash is bringing up an irrelevant argument that was conceded, and attempting to use it as a "dishonest" point against me when in fact it has been rendered entirely irrelevant for all intents and purposes of judging the first debate. This is another blatant waste of time and should be dropped from this debate, IMO. Here he references the beginning of the debate, where he started out by attempting to prove that homosexuality was not biological. Me: While I do think that biology plays a part in sexual orientation, I definitely agree that nature AND nurture play a role. The study Con presented (Exotic Becomes Erotic) explains the same thing, with the author noting that children's temperment is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors that contribute to their childhood gender identity. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. What causes homosexuality is not up for question; whether or not gay people can be good parents is. As such, I don't need to respond to any of this unless Con explains why it's relevant." As you can see, I have completely used MW's own source against him. The study he presented mentioned biological ties to sexuality, thereby undermining his entire point. In response to me-- Him: I was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities. Again, I must quote: "This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct."Your argument was literally "homosexuality is not a disorder" so I'm not really seeing anything pointless about it. Now, it's quite clear that MouthWash is completely fighting a losing battle. He repeated that homosexuality was not "natural," though ignores the fact that his own article explained that there are, in fact, biological a.k.a. NATURAL or unchosen causes of homosexuality outside of nurture as he suggested. Further, he completely strawmanned me which I find quite ironic. I never once argued that homosexuality was not a disorder. I argued that there were biological causes. You'll notice that I never once even remotely mentioned homosexuality being or not being a disorder. MouthWash is blatantly lying about what I said, and the proof is in the pudding. Further, we can once again see Pro intentionally misrepresenting our dialog by intentionally leaving out portions of our exchange. He only included the first half of my response to his argument. How low. My response: Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. They did not make the conccious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. I CONTINUED: Con"s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality, and Con never proved that there is (he rightfully dropped the point about suicide). As you can see, I never strawmanned MW's point by saying he argued that a conscious choice was being made (he didn't). That was my own acknowledgment. Instead, the second part of my response DOES negate Pro's point that biology was not a significant factor, as I pointed that his very own source explained that it was. Pro cannot suggest that every single one of my proactive arguments is a strawman of one of his. I explained this in our debate; I have no idea why he has such trouble understanding it. As an instigator, I am expected to make certain arguments proactively in favor of the resolution that I am trying to prove, and my opponent must respond to them even if they are not his own. I brought up the point about animals/ choice/ biology because Pro was initially the one arguing that homosexuality was not natural when in fact it is. Pro is the one being entirely dishonest in this debate by suggesting otherwise. My response was relevant, and I never strawmanned him. This accusation has also been negated. 10. Pro writes, "In her final round, she made the bizarre claim that I should lose the sources point because '[Con] cited the same source 3x in the last round.'" At this point, it's incredibly embarrassing and frankly bad conduct for MouthWash to so blatantly lie and cherry pick portions of my argument to include. Let's see what I REALLY said about why he should lose the sources point. Me: Some of Con's sources were irrelevant. Others helped establish my case. He cited the same source 3x in the last round, and failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. As you can see, I specifically included 4 very big reasons why he should lose points for Sources (since that is a factor that is weighted pretty heavily in the judging process). MouthWash is being completely dishonest in suggesting that I only provided one reason by intentionally excluding everything else that I said. Moreover, the reason I mentioned him referencing the same source 3x wasn't to suggest that this particular mistake ought to be enough to penalize him. Instead, I was noting that he had fewer sources than he appeared to have due to this "mistake." Since I believed that I not only had better sources but more of them, this was clearly a useful argument on my part (me citing more relevant information) because many judges consider not only the quality but quantity of sources. I was simply putting that into perspective, but provided several other reasons why I won the Sources point. MouthWash is frankly proving himself to be completely untrustworthy in his presentation of our dialog. That's pretty sad and desperate on his part. 11. Pro notes that I acknowledged his "unnecessary comments like 'I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response' as rude and borderline ad hominem." This is not remotely dishonest. Pro is again completely wasting our time with bogus accusations, and this should be dropped immediately. This isn't even an accusation. It's him whining about my explanation as for why I thought I should win the Conduct point. Apparently my opponent doesn't understand that since factors like Sources and Conduct are relevant in the judging process (since they are given points), that I have every right and some might argue responsibility to explain why I thought I won in those areas. Either make an accusation of dishonesty or drop this all-together. 12. Pro thinks it was dishonest of me to say that he didn't present any studies indicating the harms of same-sex parenting. Let's take a look at what Pro posted: http://www.debate.org... As you can see, it's a convoluted wall o'text that is far too difficult to make sense of. It looks like a bunch of random numbers. It includes zero explanation of specific harms of same-sex parenting (as in why the sexuality of one's parents leads to certain outcomes). It also doesn't give any background information on the actual study, and it is not my job nor the audience's job to go on a scavenger hunt to find information within Pro's sources. It was his duty to highlight a specific point within our debate, and then source it - not simply post a link to a source and say "I urge you to read this." This is standard debating conduct and expectations on DDO. Also, keep in mind that he made the mistake of posting this same link multiple times. To me, it seemed intentionally dishonest. Maybe it wasn't. Likewise, perhaps my suggestion that he didn't post any useful scientific studies wasn't intentionally dishonest. If it wasn't intentional, it wasn't dishonest (it would instead be an honest mistake). Regardless, let's not play another game of semantics. I will stand by the fact that this was not dishonest on my part, because what Pro presented was not clear. He didn't even provide a direct link to the study he was referencing, but some sloppy chart on another DDO page that didn't make sense nor explain the specific problems with same-sex parenting within his DDO link that I referenced. Finally, I've responded to every single one of my opponent's accusations, and explained how his assertions that I was dishonest or used lawyering tactics is simply not true.