The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

Let me start by once again thanking my opponent for presenting this debate, and re-introducing his initial statement: The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman! In all three rounds my opponent chose to focus on liberal media bias, Palin's 'executive' experience, Byrde's affiliation with the KKK and Harry Reid's evaluation of Palin's speech as 'shrill and sarcastic'. I contend that these points, while fun to debate, are not at all related with his claim that Liberal Democrats are anti woman. In the last round, I culminated my defence against his claim, with a listing of the disparity of female representation between his party and the liberal democrats that he is intent on vilifying. I urge the reader to note that my opponent failed to address this point, thereby damning his cause. Instead, he chose to focus on the term 'executive' in response to my listing of Obama/Biden political experience. I have to admit, that I really appreciated his attempts at pinning a strawman effigy on my argument claiming that I had redefined it. This debate was never about executive, political or butcher experience. The topic at hand is clearly his accusation of liberal democrats being anti woman. Who is redefining the argument? I take your strawman assersion sir and place it back in your court. ;-) At completion this debate is really about political mud slinging. My opponent provided a perfect example of it, with is opening statement, that he failed to support with tangible evidence. I countered with examples of liberal democrats, who are women, and links to websites that explain why they believe that the liberals represent the causes that are important to them. My opponent countered with a website listing the reasons conservative women believe that republicans represent the issues that are important to them. It is clear that NEITHER party is anti woman, therefore, this debate MUST go to con, irrespective of the readers political affiliation. For disclosure sake, I will let the reader know that I am neither Republican or Democrat, I am a Libertarian. I believe both parties are ineffective, and consistently fail to follow through with the issues they both claim are important parts of their platform. I believe there will be little difference between an Obama/Biden - McCain/Palin presidency, and the insulting, unsupported rhetoric utilized by both parties and illustrated by my opponent, display exactly why the American People no longer receive good leadership. I contend that the reason women consistently are more likely to vote democrat, verses republican, is because a majority of women believe that liberal democrats represent the issues that are most important to them. My opponent doesn't address this contention directly, other than to tacitly imply that they are being fooled by a liberally biased media. The inference with this argument of course, is that women aren't smart enough to see past liberal bias and obtain the 'truth' like he is. I contend that women are actually allot smarter than my opponent gives them credit for and that they are indeed quite capable to discern the issues that matter to them. They simply don't share the same political opinion as my opponent. I contend that he utilized the 'liberal media' argument, to mask his belief that he is smarter than liberals, and all those who don't vote as he does are clearly being misled, and are incapable of reasoned discernment and thought. He is wrong, and I contend that his utility of the 'women are easily misled' argument actually highlights his own party's culpability in ignorance of women's issues and perhaps explains why a majority of women are more likely to vote democratic. My opponent understands that the women's vote is essential in this election, as 22 Million unmarried women didn't vote in 2004, leading to a Bush victory. All indications are that this won't be the case in 2008, and as a result, my opponent is reduced to utilize rhetoric and unsupported charges to attempt to sway women voters, further highlighting his reduced opinion of their reasoning capabilities. I urge the reader to vote con, the clear winner of this debate, and to vote for the candidate who's policies most reflect those important to them, irrespective of political affiliation. Substance not Rhetoric for change. Thank You.