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

I'm sorry that Con evidently thinks this is a waste of time. It seems obvious to me that, since she accepted this, she would have a responsibility to take it seriously. Con seems to be unable to bold and italicize her round (perhaps she used a different browser?), but she posted it correctly on the forums, so here's a link: [http://debate.org...] Number 1. "My point was that they CAN and DO. I have no idea how many times I have to repeat myself. I was the instigator of the debate. I was Pro. I was making a proactive argument that there are no good parenting qualities or techniques that are exculusive to heterosexuals or males and females, specifically. You apparently agree! You've never argued otherwise, and you failed to list a single trait proving that assertion wrong. However, instead of saying "Yes it's true" and conceding that as a contention in my favor, you continuously whine that I am "straw manning" you and that it's not your burden to provide an answer." I have absolutely no idea what Con thinks she is arguing, or what point she is trying to respond to. You made a proactive argument that there were no specific characteristics that homosexuals could not have. I did not argue. You were right. I conceded this point. My entire accusation here was that she pretended this was essential to my case. That's what a strawman is- twisting your opponent's position into something it isn't and refuting that. My case never was that heterosexuals had specific characteristics that homosexuals could NOT possess. It is both a strawman and a semantic. This is what Con said: "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." My response: "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 (seeing as there must be at least a few success stories in the world)." She said that homosexuals could have any characteristic that heterosexuals could possess. This is true. I conceded this, as you can see from the quote itself. My assertion that this was a semantic is obvious- she was arguing that homosexuals COULD have the parenting capabilities necessary to raise children effectively. What did this have to do with anything? I responded that I agreed with this and that "it was generally not the case." In other words, I was arguing that heterosexual couples generally had those characteristics- as I should have! She then responded to me: Her response: "If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro." Then: "There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person can not. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word "can" in the resolution (based on Mirza"s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i.e., responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant." What does the fact that "good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents" have to do with ANYTHING I was saying? You repeated yourself and did not respond to what I said. Rather, your claim that I "dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant" was basically saying that you had won this point. Who cares? It had nothing to do with my case. "You completely fail to see that you can concede an argument(s), and that isn't the same as conceding the entire debate. You should have acknowledged the argument that I made was true, and moved on to explain why you felt it was irrelevant or not enough to win me the debate." What does that have to do with ANYTHING? I did concede that there were no characteristics homosexuals could not possess, as you can see by reading my first round. You repeated yourself and demanded that I prove otherwise! "You're being completely dishonest in saying I am "strawmanning" you when it was never your argument to begin with, as you rightfully point out. You don't even know the definition of straw man apparently yet you accuse me of using it." This is what a strawman is: 1. Person 1 has position X. 2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. 3. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Let me put it more simply: I had the burden to prove that children were generally raised more effectively with a mother and a father than with two of each. It was not my contention that no homosexual couple possessed the characteristics that children needed to be raised well. I conceded this and pointed out why it was irrelevant. You repeated yourself and pretended that I needed to refute this. But it was not and never was my contention. You responded to a assertion I did not make and demanded that I prove homosexual couples could NEVER possess those characteristics even after I explained my position to you. You did not refute anything I said. You have strawmanned me and exploited the resolution. Con is using dishonest tactics RIGHT NOW. I said this in my previous round! Indeed, when addressing my question, she simply quoted it out of context and left out everything else. She has unlimited characters, so I don't see why she would even need to do that. That question ("What exactly did you hope to gain through this argument other than proving that homosexuals COULD have the characteristics to raise children properly?") makes no sense without the rest of my accusation. Next round, Con needs to quote and respond to my argument in full rather than taking certain statements out of context. "Drop this contention, for everybody's sake. You haven't proven a shred of dishonesty on my part, so it's not a legitimate contention in your favor." We have two scenarios here: Con is either the stupidest, laziest, and most inattentive debater on this site, or she deliberately used dishonest tactics. Courts do not let people go because they can't read their minds and don't know for sure what they intended. They require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what I have provided: REPETITION of blatant misinterpretations of my arguments even after I pointed them out. Danielle isn't stupid or insane. We have overwhelming evidence that she did, in fact, exploit the resolution and strawmanned me. May I remind the readers of this little gem?: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." Yes, she directly lied about her position in Round 2 of this debate by saying that it was only about generalities. Number 2. "We both agree that having two same-sex parents are better than one because two are simply better than one thanks to the additional benefits. Are you following? Good. Now, the article explained the benefits of having two parents - which MouthWash and I agree on - including dual income, additional support, more resources, etc. Still following? Awesome. So, much like contention 1, which explained that there are no particular traits exclusive or inherent to heterosexuality or males and females in particular, I was simply noting that all of the benefits of having an additional partner could be achieved by gay couples as well as straight couples! Get it?! Just as my point 1 my argument was that gays and males/females could be trustworthy, responsible, caring, etc. and have all the qualities of good parents (those traits are not gender or sexuality specific), I was acknowledging in point 2 that the additional benefits of having two parents could be equally applied to gay couples of either sexuality or gender as well. I simply cited the study to indicate what the benefits of two parents were, hence the word COUPLES in the resolution. I wanted you to again acknowledge that gays of either gender could provide the same additional support of a second parent. Again, we are talking about gay vs. straight couples." Oh, so you were trying to establish that ANY two-parent family, regardless of sex, gives the same benefits of having two parents to their kids? But here's a problem: that's OBVIOUS. It has nothing to do with how homosexual couples stack up against heterosexual couples. These benefits that Con points out are inherent to two-parent families. Both types of couples obviously provide them. There was no reason to point this out. "Re: As I have said, the study was not designed nor capable of finding discrepancies between how effectively same-sex couples parented in comparison to regular ones, or find (as Con said) certain characteristics that would more likely be emulated by traditional couples." "And as *I* have said, this is completely irrlevant." I'm sorry, when did you say this beforehand? If you had, this might be justifiable as a misunderstanding. But you never explained this even after I argued my viewpoint. "The study had absolutely nothing to do with comparing gay vs. straight couples. I never said that it was about that, so the fact that you keep repeating yourself as if you're somehow enlightening us to some discrepancy is just frankly embarrassing on your part. Again, THE STUDY IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING GAY VS. STRAIGHT COUPLES. Instead, the study was about finding specific qualities of couples in general (two parents) raising a child, regardless of their gender or sexuality. The entire point was to prove that like good parenting qualities, none of these qualities (like providing additional resources) were exclusive to one particular sex or sexuality either." No, you're just making up a new excuse to justify your argument. I conceded that having a two-parent family was better than one, as anyone who reads the debate can clearly see. You responded to my concession by saying: "No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro." There are two things very wrong here. 1. Your claim that it flatly proved that homosexual couples could raise children as well as heterosexual couples (i.e. the resolution). Looking at this by itself, it may have been simple inability to communicate your point, but the fact that you were directly responding to my EXPLANATION that it was not relevant to my case throws this defense into doubt. 2. The fact you said "the point goes to Pro." Yes, I did concede this, but the only context I've ever heard that kind of statement in are real, two-sided arguments where one person refutes the other person's position. In other words, you were pretending that you had won something through this, when in fact you had simply affirmed an obvious fact that I made clear I wasn't going to contest. Had you been honest you would have made it clear to me that you understood it was irrelevant to my case and stopped going on about it, especially after I explained my objections to you. You later said this: "While 2 parents are better than one (Con agrees), it doesn"t matter if those parents are same-sex (Con disagrees)." This is a lie. It doesn't matter if those parents are homosexual or heterosexual when it comes to benefits derived solely from having two parents. I said that that was obvious when I conceded it: "Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant." "I included a study validating that 2 same-sex parents provide the same benefits to parenting that 2 heterosexual parents do: double the resources, emotional support, etc. Con said this too was irrelevant, but it proves that what parentsprovide and not their sexuality is what matters." Again, resources and emotional support are not the be-all and end-all of parenting. I've said this in my previous round, so why do I end up having to repeat myself? "Re: In addition, I'd like the readers to note that she seems to have forgotten all about her previous point in which she demanded that I prove that homosexuals could NEVER have certain characteristics and claims that traditional couples "being more likely to emulate" them was enough. This is enough to prove that it was deliberate rather than a simple misunderstanding. Hilariously, she also used this in the comments after the debate in order to convince people to vote for her: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." Absurd indeed." "Copy and paste whatever quotes of mine that you're referring to, and source them accordingly." I did copy and paste your quote JUST NOW: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." It is from the comment section of our debate, as I JUST SAID. And this is from your R2 rebuttal to this very same point: "or that a male/female dynamic would be more likely to emulate certain characteristics compared to gay couples." "What's your point here? You're cherry picking random sentences that I allegedly made about homosexualus NEVER having certain qualities." I quoted the full sentence. It is actually located in the comments section five pages back in case anyone's interested. "However, what I can say was that I never said you had to prove that homosexuals could NEVER have certain characteristics. What I challenged was to find even a single good parenting quality that was exclusive or inherent to heterosexuality - or - that gay people typically did not posess (or even less likely to posess). My point was that certain traits are not applicable to one specific sex or sexuality." First of all, this shold have been in my first accusation, but Con decided to abandon the numbering, so I'll move on. Let's look at what was actually said, for starters. "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." This very clearly implies I needed to prove no gay person could possess those characteristics. I responded by saying this was a semantic. Danielle then replied to me: "If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro." Here, she does claim that she was talking about characteristics of the sexes (implying her first statement was just another failure to communicate basic arguments). However, the readers can see that she was blatantly lying about her claim that she was only demanding a parenting characteristic that was simply inherent to heterosexuality (that gay people were less likely to possess). She directly said that she was talking about traits that gays CANNOT possess. Regardless of whatever spin she puts on it here, her own words convict her. Take a look at another response: "There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person cannot. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word "can" in the resolution (based on Mirza"s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i.e., responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant." She has lied about her intentions, even after I explained to her again and again during the course of the debate that this was not about whether gays could possess these parenting skills. It simply can't be denied any longer at this point. The fact that this occured so many times in a row most definitely proves that this was a deliberate and dishonest tactic used to make my response more difficult and shove a completely incomprehensible burden onto me. "Testosterone is part of the equation that makes guys more inclined to have "rough and tumble" play with their kids, which is a quality MouthWash suggested made having a male/female dynamic more superior. But a woman having more testosterone would incline her to engage in the same type of rough and tumble play that a child could enjoy with a man. As such, the child of a lesbian couple (for example) would probably not be missing out on any rough and tumble play that they would get from having a man in their life." Con seems to be arguing the previous debate rather than if she used dishonest tactics in it. Regardless, she never brought this up during the debate and it has no bearing on this one. (Also, she would have had to prove testosterone was the be-all and end-all of parenting behavior, disregarding psychological factors to giving birth or being a father, or inherent behaviors programmed into the sexes, as we know homosexuals don't always act like the opposite sex. In addition, rough-and-tumble play isn't the only things males provide, as evidenced by this source: [http://www.civitas.org.uk...] which I provided in the actual debate). "Throughout our debate, I challenged MouthWash to use either anecdotal evidence or scientific studies to provide me with examples of things that kids with gay parents said they were missing out on. He failed to do so." Lie. I provided the rough-and-tumble analogy, I pointed out that a mother's close and soft behavior was critical for development, and I gave the above source, which you completely ignored. Let's keep this debate on track and argue only about whether you used dishonest tactics. Number 3. "Re: Again, she shoved the burden to prove that children NEEDED opposite-sex parents to have proper care. In other words, I now had to prove that they had characteristics that gay couples could never have." "What I said: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life... The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." "First of all, it is absolutely Pro's burden to either negate or accept the contentions I provided in my favor. That isn't "shifting the burden." That is standard procedure in any debate. It's up to the audience to decide the merit of my contentions." What the are you rambling about? What does this have to do with my accusation at all? I said that you were "shifting the burden" because you were acting like I needed to refute something that was irrelevant. She began with an anecdotal argument: "My parents can throw a baseball and take me hiking just as well as any man could. I've always had a plethora of male role models. I never felt that I was missing anything by not having that dad for me." Kids with gay parents aren't missing out on these things." I responded: "Anecdotal evidence only shows the limits of what is or can be possible. Pro concedes this later on and I'm baffled as to why she brought it up in the first place." Her: "The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." (Notice the word "needed" is another semantic. I try to point this out below). Me: "Just because someone *can* turn out well adjusted, it does not follow that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence." Her: "The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees." Con's responsibility was to explain why she used the anecdotal evidence. She claimed that it was to refute the notion that homosexuals could NEVER have characteristics allowing them to parent effectively (note that this essentially affirms my previous point about her using the characteristics argument to exploit the resolution). When I pointed this out... she pointed out in turn that children raised in a traditional family also had no guarantees of success. The problem was that this was obvious. Yes, my demand that she not use examples to prove that homosexuals *can* parent effectively applied to me as well. The problem is that this had absolutely nothing to do with MY accusation of her semantic use and that I never used the alleged semantics I was talking about. It's a completely unexpected and bizarre turnaround- one second I'm accusing her of lawyering, the next she goes and says that the same rules apply to me as well! And through it all, it ended up with her NEVER RESPONDING TO MY ACCUSATIONS. She clearly used smoke-and-mirror tactics to obfuscate the issue and this point is affirmed. "Pro's responsibility is to explain why they are insufficient. The intention of my argument was PERFECTLY clear. Indeed, it was to highlight that two opposite sex parents were not needed for good parenting. Proving that is the entire purpose of this debate." Well, this is awkward. Have fun proving that two opposite sex parents aren't needed for good parenting (it'll take about the viewing time of Zach Wahl's speech). My work here is done. As anyone can see above, I did respond sufficiently, only to be evaded by bizarre finger-pointing. "- hence why I made not one, not two, but many arguments in my favor. Pro honestly thinks he can say "These contentions don't matter" and not have to argue against them. Quite clearly that's for the audience to decide. His job is to refute, negate, or diminish the relevance of my contentions - NOT whine that I am imposing a burden on him to argure against something he can't refute, and then name drop random fallacies." I don't need to argue against your assertion that kids raised by traditional families "can turn out fine, but there are no guarantees." That's because nothing in my arguments had to do with that. It was completely random, inane, and pointless in context. "Re: Again, she shoved the burden to prove that children NEEDED opposite-sex parents to have proper care. In other words, I now had to prove that they had characteristics that gay couples could never have." "Indeed, I said "The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." It's obvious that Pro is the only relying on semantics and manipulation given I've explained the purpose of my argument multiple times." Um, you're basically digging your own grave now. Your justification for using anecdotal evidence is that children don't need opposite sex parents? Way to prove that I'm relying on semantics and manipulation. Obviously if some gay couple has those characteristics they'll raise children just as well as straights. The reason I'm explaining this time and time again each time she makes a ridiculous claim is because I fear she'll hold that claim up and say "MouthWash never responded to this one!" "I won't repeat this again-- My point was that MouthWash completely, utterly, and 100% failed to provide a single reason or explanation as to why heterosexual parents were preferable or better at providing certain qualities. His ONLY answer in the debate was "rough and tumble" play by fathers had certain benefits, which I have already responded to both in this debate and the other many times over. It's clear that he simply failed to meet his burden, and the fact that I pointed that out repeatedly he is now considering "dishonest" based on my outlining of what I meant and what his burden was." Rough and tumble play was most certainly not the only thing I used to argue, as I have previously explained. "Re: Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them. Fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation than mothers. As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction." "Pro has the audacity to say "My claims had absolutely nothing to do and were not dependent on having the children be biologically related to the parents or sharing their DNA." Yes! Pro actually said that in his last round! Of course, referencing a mother or a father absolutely and 100% had to do with shared biological ties and DNA." That's another semantic use. Simply because the people involved evidently shared DNA does not mean that these were dependent on being related. Has Con never understood that correlation does not imply causation? Here's the source [http://www.civitas.org.uk...] As you can see, there was never any claim I used that was predicated on them being the biological parents. It is a strawman. "It's quite obvious that anyone could talk soothingly to a baby; Pro's point was that a *mother* does it - or does it in a certain way - and my rebuttal was that it was not necessary for a mother to do it. Anyone could do it. Pro had to prove that kids with gay parents (I'm sorry... a same-sex couple as parents) are less likely to receive this kind of soothing attention, which of course he didn't." "The fact that he referenced a mother/father and then said that his claim had "absolutely nothing to do with biology" is a blatant lie - one of many." Lie. My point was never that a biological mother needed to do it. Your rebuttal was not that it was not necessary for a biological mother to do it. Obviously when I pointed out that "Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them," THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER SHE SHARED THEIR DNA. Pro is simply saying that I said "mother" so that must mean I was talking about a biological mother even though I EXCESSIVELY MADE CLEAR during the debate that my argument was not the biological ties or DNA were required. She ignored it all. Read: "Again, you've avoided any real debate by strawmanning me. 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." And: "This has nothing to do with "biological ties," but rather SS families vs traditional ones. This is the last time I will repeat myself." My actual point was that fathers and mothers (not necessarily biological ones, for reasons obvious to anyone capable of making basic inferations) had different parenting traits and that children need those in order to have a healthy upbringing. Thus, homosexual couples could not parent effectively because they were the same sex. Here, let me quote everything I said so that Con doesn't take it all out of context: "Moving on, your only response to my source about the effects of a natural (this does not imply being biologically related for reasons I'll explain later, and which should have been obvious to Con) father is one of your own sources. I grant that my source was obscure and undetailed, but I have demonstrated why your sources are unreliable, and thus my case still stands. I further point out that mothers and fathers relate to their children differently:" "Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them. Fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation than mothers.As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction.[1.http://www.civitas.org.uk...] Recent evidence also shows that fathers differentially impact brain development. Without the father's spontaneous and energetic playing, the child's left hemisphere develops improperly [2.Schore & McIntosh, 2011]." But let's move on. "He also said, "The presence of the NATURAL father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls." My response to him was completely accurate and not at all dishonest. He referenced NATURAL, biological parenting in his arguments, and I dismantled them. Then he said his claims had "nothing to do with biology." Is this a joke?" "Natural father" could be interpreted to mean simply that people without their natural fathers had one less parent to go with. Even if they had adopted parents, the effects of not having a father in their early years or possibly being in a foster home (as such scenarios are likely) would produce this effect. This seems to be a typical association-causation fallacy because I was obviously not saying that adopted parents couldn't care for their kids as well as biological parents, which would be ridiculous. How do we know that's what I meant? Because my source specifically said so: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]. She simply quoted me and left out my source entirely. Which is rather dishonest itself, isn't it? "However other studies note that compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They also have higher self-esteem and confidence, and tend to break rules less, indicating that teen pregnancy is likely not in the cards... This debate is about one's sexual orientation affecting their ability to parent - not whether or not you can have the same biological ties to someone who is not related to you (obviously not). As such, I haven't seen any evidence that fathers and mothers aren't interchangeable insofar as being positive male/ female role models." "As you can see, there's nothing dishonest about my rebuttal or assessment of Pro's bad arguments." No, not here. I JUST QUOTED what arguments I felt were dishonest, but it seems you decided to ignore me. So I'll do it again: "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." In other words, she dismissed my sources based on the fact that they didn't prove that DNA was important. A complete lie. Good luck defending this one. Number 4. "Re: This argument is wrong because it has absolutely nothing to do with each couples' parenting capabilities, and because unplanned pregnancies are not inevitable aspects of heterosexual relationships." "I said I dropped the point about unplanned pregnancies multiple times in the last debate, and explained that once again in this debate. The fact that he's bringing up a dropped contention (and I explained why I dropped it - in relevance to the contention that HE dropped) is bad conduct on his part. He's desperate. I advised him for my sake and the readers' sake to drop these blatantly dumb contentions that are not in his favor - especially those over dropped arguments which were therefore rendered completely irrelevant to the last debate. They weren't part of the judging process, so the fact that he's bringing them up when for all intents and purposes they were rendered meaningless is just sad and pathetic. He's wasting our time for no reason." Yes, you dropped it during the debate becuase you said that it invalidated my own arguments about gays being depressed (which is wrong, but this isn't the time). My point was that you, rather than explain why you brought it up in the first placed, used smoke-and-mirror tactics by evading an explanation and dropped it by saying it hurt my own case (in which case you evidently fine with me being right). "Re: I NEVER used anecdotal evidence to establish that homosexuals were depressed. Rather, I claimed that homosexual relationships themselves were unhealthy and led to depression and other emotional or mental problems... This means that they were inherently tied with homosexual relationships, in contrast to unplanned pregnancies which are entirely avoidable." "Saying homosexual relationships lead to depression is anecdotal, because clearly depression is not inherent to homosexuality. If that was Pro's argument, he should have made it. Clearly that's not true - not a single psychological association would ever validate such a broad, untrue assertion. I'm gay and I'm not depressed. I know tons of people in gay relationships who are not depressed." No, I'm not exactly saying that it is inherent to homosexuality, but rather an inherent consequence to it. I still never used anecdotal evidence to establish that. By saying that no psychological association would ever agree with me is arguing directly against the statement, which we are NOT doing here. In addition, I did not drop this because of anything Con said, but because of the extreme difficulty in finding sources... as I have said again, and again... and again. I don't know why I have to repeat myself. Number 5. "Re: What she was doing here was pretending that she had won something when she simply rehashed an irrelevant point over and over again. I said that this was a strawman. As for now, I have nothing to refute until my opponent actually addresses my accusation." "No. I'm not strawmanning Pro. Look at his hilarious explanation and see how he defeats his own argument. 1. [Danielle] claimed that sex lives had nothing to do with parenting skills. 2. [MouthWash] claimed that: a) kids needed a mother and a father b) homosexual relationships (not sex lives) were unhealthy 3. [Danielle] repeated herself and said that she had won the point. 4. [MouthWash] pointed out that she had won nothing because: a) I never claimed that sex lives affected parenting skills b) the fact that sex live don't affect parenting skills had no bearing on my case 5. Con repeated herself again and claimed that she had won the point. Pro blatantly srawmanned ME. If my argument was that a parent's sex lives have nothing to do with parenting skills, then Pro must ARGUE AGAINST THAT. He either has to concede it, negate it or undermine it's relevance. As you can see - by his own admission - he responded by saying kids need a mother and a father, and that homosexual relationships were unhealthy. What does a mother/father dynamic or gay relationships have to do with a parents' sex lives affecting their parenting skills?" Con completely misrepresents my accusation and my actual response. Let me use the same syllogism with quotes. 1. [Danielle] claimed that sex lives had nothing to do with parenting skills. "Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior." 2. [MouthWash] claimed that: a) kids needed a mother and a father b) homosexual relationships (not sex lives) were unhealthy (The above were just my argument for the debate.) 3. [Danielle] repeated herself and said that she had won the point. "Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro." <-- Dishonesty. 4. [MouthWash] pointed out that she had won nothing because: a) I never claimed that sex lives affected parenting skills "I can't understand why you think you've won anything here. My case has been about homosexual relationships (not necessarily who they have sex with) and the impact of not having a mother or a father." b) the fact that sex lives don't affect parenting skills had no bearing on my case "Irrelevant because I never even brought it up." 5. Con repeated herself again and claimed that she had won the point. "Whether a parent has sex with a man or woman doesn't affect their parental judgment. Con dropped this in R2, and in R3 responded that it's "irrelevant." Clearly it isn"t " it proves that one's sexuality doesn"t impact their ability to parent effectively." As you can see I never contested it and claimed that it was irrelevant. However, I was saying that it was never part of my case and by doing so, dismissed it. I shouldn't have had to concede it at all. Common sense should inform her that my arguments did not contest this assertion and so she should not pursue it, much less claim that the "point" had gone to her. "I said I won the point because MouthWash failed to explain how a parent's sexual endeavors affect or harm their relationship with their child." Yes, as if you could "win" something that was never at stake- the only context I've ever heard this in is when a debater refutes another debater directly, as I've said. My accusation is that you pretended to win a legitimate point rather than rehash an irrelevant one that I conceded. Please. "Clearly, it was an argument for MY case, not his. I never strawmanned him, and his rampant accusations of random fallacies are dishonest on HIS part, not mine." "Strawman" may not have been the precise term, but it is quite similar. After all, you did imply that it was part of MY case by saying you had won. Number 6. "Re: Allow me to repeat myself- I was not arguing that a natural father was needed to parent effectively. I was arguing aginst opponent's contention that a lesbian's male friend taking her son out to the ball game somehow replaced a father. This is a strawman." Let's see what I said: "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." No, I was NOT arguing that biological ties were necessary at all (as I have pointed out). Con was essentially arguing that any male, such as a lesbian parent's friend or relative, could act as a role model and provide a male relationship on the same level as a father (not necessarily a biological one; the paternal instinct is learned rather than inherited). Let me quote her so she can't slip out of this one: "I've always had a plethora of male role models. I never felt that I was missing anything by not having that dad for me." Kids with gay parents aren't missing out on these things." "There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life (implying that they had both male and female role models, which doesn't make any sense considering gay couples are the same-sex. Con was arguing that any male who helped with the kids could be a role model as well as a father)." Here's another exchange. Me: "Fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else"" Her: "Con never mentioned this before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact." Me: "You take this out of context. I was responding to your argument that any arbitrary male role model could take the place of a father in a two-mother family. Same for two-father families." "MouthWash literally contradicts himself so blatantly that it's hard to tell if this is a troll debate or not. He said that he was arguing against the notion that a non-biological father (male friend) could somehow replace a father. I pointed out that I was arguing that biological ties were not necessary as Pro seems to indicate, and that they COULD replace a father. This is not a strawman in any way whatsoever. We are literally talking about the exact same thing. I was saying that biological ties were not important. Pro is saying that they are. There is absolutely not a single aspect of this contention that involves a strawman of any kind." No, I was arguing against your assertion in R2 that a a child raised by lesbians could have the same benefits of a father from limited interaction with other males. I never argued that biological ties were necessary, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to strawman me. Number 7. "Re: But as anyone can see, I provided examples of mental and emotional development from mothers and fathers which she then proceeded to strawman with her DNA argument." "I'm so glad MouthWash keeps arguing against himself; it makes my job that much easier. He said that he argued that child development patterns obtained from mothers and fathers was significant, and then said that I strawmanned him with my DNA argument. I've already provided the direct quotes proving that no such strawman exists. In talking about a mother and father, Pro is in fact referencing biological ties." Already refuted this. "But let's say he wasn't. Let's say he's talking simply about the various benefits offered by men and women. In that case, he's already defeated his own argument! If biological ties aren't important and only the gender dynamics are, then my point about random men or random women replacing male/female dynamics is completely true." So you admit that you claimed that any random male could come and replace a father by simply interacting with the kids. An assertion which, as I have pointed out, is ridiculous. "Further, here again is the direct quote where MouthWash references NATURAL a.k.a. biological fathers, meaning he's completely lying in saying that biology was irrleveant to his contentions/sources: "The presence of the NATURAL father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls." - MW" The source I provided refutes this point. I must note it is amusing that you once again left it out in quoting me. Number 8. "The debate started in round 2. Your format was terrible and didn't coincide with my numbering for cohesiveness starting with your very first rebuttal. If I missed something, it was an honest mistake and not an intentionally dishonest tactic. Good luck proving that I didn't respond intentionally, when in fact I addressed your points later on as well as explained how my initial rebuttal was sufficient regardless." I don't need to "prove" your intention, it can be inferred by the fact it was so obvious. But that decision is ultimately up to the voters (here's a link to the debate): [http://debate.org...] You later responded only because I pointed out how ridiculous it was to claim you had "won" anything. And besides, it was never my argument so you should have had the sense to drop it rather than simply repeat yourself as you did. "I'm not playing dumb. Pro just admitted that he lied about what fallacies I've allegedly used against him, but then blames me for not following his unstructured accusations." I didn't lie; the only difference between the strawman and red herring is whether it was used to misrepresent someone's argument specifically or if it mislead in general, so it makes sense that I got confused. "I didn't use a red herring, which is a vague accusation that only refers to intentional misleading from the actual issue. I didn't mislead against anything. My proactive argument was that kids with gay parents being teased was irrlevant to this debate. MouthWash said this was a strawman and dropped it. I pointed out that it was merely something I wanted to point out as part of my constructive case - NOT a manipulation of his arugment (because it was my argument) - and now he's accusing me of a red herring. I really don't know how to even respond to this. Clearly it's not. Clearly it's yet another example of Pro not understanding that he is responsible for responding to my contentions even if they are irrelevant to his own, or not part of his constructive case." Yes, I do. I responded to it in the first round. What I claimed was dishonest about this in the first place was that you kept misleading people to believe that you had won a legitimate argument by repeating yourself. Let me ask you this: when you realized that nothing in my case remotely or even had to do with that, why didn't you let it go? Number 9. "Re: What I meant by "biological ties" was that homosexuality was entirely biological and hereditary." "This entire point is irrelevant to the debate as it highlights not a shred of dishonesty on my part. We're arguing over a dropped contention. This is a massive waste of time. He is saying that his initial argument was that homosexuality was entirely biological and hereditary." Lie. It was that homosexuality WASN'T biological or hereditary. Let me quote myself: "First, I will establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and is subject to a large number of psychological variables. This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct. I point three facts that seem to contradict modern conception of attractiveness: 1. Apes tend to be attracted to older females due to their having more experience raising young and surviving. In modern society we observe the opposite. 2. People used to find overweight or heavier females attractive, the logic being that such women were better fed and had a larger chance of surviving. This is still prevalent in some societies. 3. In Elizabethian England pale skin (possibly signalling health because a clear and pale face probably didn"t have smallpox) and a large forehead was considered attractive (the hair was plucked to make the forehead appear bigger). Second, there is a large body of evidence that supports an "exotic-becomes-erotic" theory (which states that whatever sex is seen as "exotic" or different later becomes erotic, thus gender-nonconformity during childhood causes sexual attraction to the same-sex later in life). In a 1987 study, 75% of gender-nonconforming boys became bisexual or homosexual in later years compared with only 4% of gender-conforming boys. Homosexuals overwhelmingly report sex-atypical activities and had opposite-sex friends growing up. [1. http://dbem.ws...]" Obvious, blatant lies aren't helping your case one bit. "I pointed out that while it certainly had biological ties, it was not a mental disorder, but I never said that he accused it of being as such (thus, no strawman on my part). I mentioned that it wasn't a disorder before he ever even posted an argument; it was simply something to keep in mind as my argument was that being gay didn't inhibit people from good parenting despite being an inherent part of their identity." It's good that you can concede this, instead of like last round where you openly denied you ever claimed this and I pointed it right out. "For instance, wnope noted that schizophrenia was "natural" but could be harmful. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not. As such, my point was that not being a mental disorder meant it couldn't be considered inherently harmful. There is nothing dishonest about this." No, it was responding to Con's ridiculous point claiming that homosexuality couldn't be harmful because it was natural and found in animals. Wnope showed how ridiculous that was. Let me quote you in case she denies this: "Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con"s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality." "Re: I dropped the depression argument because I was unable to find many sources. And when did I say biology was not a significant factor? You are simply redefining "biological" to suit your needs. Throughout the debate you were never able to pick one definition of the word and stick with it." "WhatisthisIcanteven... I don't remember ever defining "biological" in any other way other than the actual definition of biological (as in, biological relationships established through a DNA connection). Anyway, Pro acknowledges that he dropped the argument. It's a moot point. There was nothing dishonest about my argument, rebuttal or explanation." As I have proven from her quote, Con claimed that the fact that some animals were homosexual proved that it was "natural" (as if animals cannot develop social abnormalities) and that somehow proved it was harmless. Furthermore, Danielle has completely ignored my allegation that she strawmanned me. The strawman is as follows: Me: "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." Her: "Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. 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)." She was clearly strawmanning me by using the animals to demonstrate that homosexuality wasn't a conscious choice. I never said that it was and it was never part of my case. Number 10. "Whether or not the conclusions were the result of fallacious reasoning is up for the audience to decide. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said. Every single thing I said was true. I explained why his sources were irrlevant (didn't back up his claims); I explained how some of his sources helped establish my case in the debate (eg. Pro's Exotic Becomes Erotic article); it's true that he cited the same source 3x; and it's true that he failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. As you can see, there was not a shred of dishonesty in anything I said in explaining why the Sources point should have been in my favor. This contention should be dropped immediately." No, it shouldn't. It is true that I cited the same source 3x, and I explained precisely why I did that. It should never have been part of your argument as to why I should lose the Sources point. Number 11. "Once again, let's examine what Pro is whining about. He's complaining that I brought up his ad hominem attacks against me in my explanation as for why I should win Conduct points. As I explained in the last round, apparently MouthWash doesn't understand that Sources and Conduct are factors of the judging process, which are each assigned a point value. As such, I mentioned his ad hom attacks as an indication that his conduct was inferior to mine. This is completely relevant to the debate, so I would say it's "important" and I didn't bring it up except for in 1 sentence during the final round. I didn't treat it as some very influential aspect of the debate; I merely pointed out that I exhibited better conduct than Pro, and I did. There is nothing "absurd" about this. There is nothing "dishonest" about this." Yes, there is. An ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. You're committed quite a few over the course of this debate, but making a GENERAL STATEMENT about the quality of your response is not anything remotely resembling an actual ad hominem, and you were incredibly dishonest for even implying that I should lose conduct for it. It would be like me claiming you should lose the S/G point because your fonts got messed up and made your round harder to read. It's beyond ridiculous and should conceded immediately. Number 12. "I repeat: It includes zero explanation of specific harms of same-sex parenting (as in why the sexuality of one's parents leads to certain outcomes). Instead, it only provides a number for comparison with no factual data to support the conclusions." It didn't need to. That wasn't the point of the study. It showed a direct correlation with inferior outcomes for children raised by gay parents, which contradicted your own studies. "It also doesn't give any background information on the actual study (in terms of the demographics and other pertinent information, including class, geography, etc... This is relevant because how a culture reacts to gay couples raising a child will inevitably impact the way the child perceives themselves and their parents). It was Pro's 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." First, the Sarantakos study was in Australia and Regnerus's was in the US (he also pointed out many specific flaws in the APA study including non-random samples and stuff like that. I also posted a link to it at the bottom of the page where it explain how the study was done, but it seems that now the articles are no longer free for the public. Other users who actually read it can confirm they were once). But the point is, Con is completely lying when she says that that information was not given. Second, Con completely misquotes me when she claims I only said "I urge you to read this." I actually said: "I urge my opponent to take note of the Sarantakos (1996) study. It compares 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples that were all "matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, education, occupation, and socio-economic status)." The combined sample size 174, which is the seventh-largest sample size in the research findings above. What's interesting is that all of the larger studies were all adult self-report studies, which means that the Sarantakos is the largest study that investigated the development of children." Indeed, I explained to her exactly which study she needed to see! "Right off the bat, I shouldn't have had to go looking at all of those external sources as they were presented, so they should have been disqualified from our debate anyhow." I just caught you lying AGAIN. What's your excuse now? Forgot how to read? "By his own admission, he messed up on posting his sources, and what I saw didn't seem to back up his case at all because of the error. I pointed that out, and it was not dishonest." Le. I never said that I messed up anywhere. Con can't misquote me because I never said it. I shouldn't have to deal with this incessant insanity from a competent debater. "At BEST you can say it was a mistake based on how he misused the Sources aspect of the debate. Of course, all Pro had to do was say "Actually my sources did explain XYZ sufficiently, and here's why/how..." I explained it in the debate itself: "I posted three links to my three graphs, which happened to be on the same page and could be confused with each other. I posted the along with the corresponding numbers for each graph (4, 5, 6) so that readers would know what I wanted to cite. What's really sad is why anyone would consider that grounds for a point loss. It seems YOU got confused, because you apparently didn't bother to scroll down and see the different studies." "Of course then it would be up to the audience to decide. I didn't do anything intentionally "dishonest." A misunderstanding (even if I had misunderstood) is not dishonest. An accident is not dishonest. To me, Pro's sources were far from clear or cohesive and I'm not the only person who felt that way. Considering he didn't source properly or according to debate rules and standards, it's not my fault if myself or the audience got confused." My sources were fine. What's so incredibly irritating about all of this is that I EXPLAINED THIS ALL IN MY PREVIOUS ROUND. All of it. I even had to requote myself multiple times. How is this NOT dishonesty? You've finished yourself.. ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to please scroll up to the last part of my previous round to see the exact same arguments being made and then notice Con completely ignoring all of them. It's truly incomprehensible to me. "I also still stand by the fact that he hasn't explained why his sources or studies are superior." I can't even fathom a response to this. I directly gave you a link with multiple studies done by the APA and I pointed out the Sarantakos study and explained why it was superior. I even gave you a ScienceDirect link with more details. Anyone who even read it knows this is ridiculous. Here it is, so that nobody just has to take my word for it: [http://www.debate.org...]. (I pointed out Sarantakos during the actual debate). Finishing up. Let me summarize the contents of this debate: Con directly lied about several things she said that exploited the resolution. Con justified her strawmen by saying that my arguments required biological ties with the parents, an allegation disproven from simply looking at my source. Con has not denied that she repeated unrelated arguments and instead has claimed that I needed to concede them directly, which of course is ridiculous. Common sense tells you that you don't repeat completely unecessary things claiming you won them. Con has barely touched arguments 8, 9, 10, and 11, and instead used rather large amounts of text in ranting and mocking them. Con utterly ignored every single one of my arguments for 12- ignored them- and simply made accustions that they were hard to understand, a claim which cannot be upheld under the most basic scrutiny. I also predict Con will protest the massive length of this round. Let me point out that easily 60-70% of this has been quoted material. Unlike my opponent, who cherry picks what she wants to quote and address, I have quoted almost every allegation made and responded to everything in detail. In my opinion, she can address this round without much difficulty, especially because she doesn't have to do any sort of research ot cite links as well. Furthermore, I have combined her long, reptitive rants in the comments and found that the characters used in them alone totals over 20,000 (only a few thousand less than her previous round). Length should not be an excuse here. I request that the voter give lengthy RFDs that address specific contentions brought up here. Any RFD that just says, "Well, I think so-and-so was better because of some broad reason" should be treated as a votebomb. Analyzing the previous debate. Looking back at the actual debate [http://debate.org...] it is time to examine where all of these dishonest tactics came into play. 1. If in fact, the semantics are to taken into consideration, we need to look at their impact. Notice how the posts devolved into long, drawn out slogs as I directly quoted and responded to each of her arguments. I directly quoted her each time and gave her full context so that she couldn't misunderstand my points. However she often misquoted me and saved herself room by not sufficiently responding. Indeed, she has not remotely contested my accusation of Gish Galloping. It isn't a stretch at all- more than half of each round was dedicated to individually quoting, addressing and debunking specific stawmen and semantics which I have addressed in this debate. How much time was spent on her ridiculous repetition of irrelevant points alone? I already passed the limit simply in addressing what I could, but Danielle said that I needed to "directly concede them." Imagine if all of these semantics and strawmen- the things that Con demands I failed to address properly- were gone. What would be left? 2. During the argument, there were real arguments made and exchanged. Things such as a. Potential depression in homosexuals. b. Fathers and mothers relate to children differently. c. Studies showing homosexual couples' kids are disadvantaged. Notice that, throughout the debate, every SINGLE attempt to argue one of these points resulted in strawmen or some other type of avoidance tactic. a. Con used the reasoning against her unplanned pregnancy argument to claim that this was invalid. Obviously that is false; I never used anecdotal evidence to establish this argument. It is a strawman. b. Con completely failed to address this and instead took one of my statements out of context to imply I needed to prove biological ties were essential to parenting. Thus, she reasoned, the fact that fathers and mother have different parenting traits meant nothing for same-sex couples. Indeed, she dismissed it entirely by simply pointing out that the source never said care had to come from biological parents. It is a strawman. c. Con completely ignored these even after I explained them throughly and ignored the source I gave that provided more details. Throughout this debate, she has falsely claimed I conceded I messed up on them (I didn't) and blatantly ignored EVERY explanation, even long, drawn out ones that explicitly detailed how they were made obvious to you from the beginning. These are smoke-and-mirror tactics. It seems that for every actual argument I made, at every turn, I was repeatedly strawmanned into stagnation and forced to explain in detail what these contentions were. I repeated myself endlessly and got nowhere. She turned the debate into a fiasco by refusing to argue properly against even the most basic assertions I made. Arguments: It seems that all I had to do here was provide convincing evidence that some of the arguments used were dishonest, but the entire debate was utterly overloaded with them. Blatant falsehoods and strawmen from Con assured me a win. Conduct: Con regularly ranted, insulted, and condenscended, in the debate and on the comments, and even accusing someone of being my multi-account for simply supporting me (the admin proved he wasn't). It seems she simply didn't care about conduct at all here. Sources: Irrelevant to this debate. S/G: Both me and Con's spelling and grammar have been adequate. I thank the readers for their attention. I also thank Danielle for this interesting opportunity to debate, in the hope that she has gained something from it.