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

*** NOTE: I will not be respnding to each and every bullet or sentence in the next round. This debate is WAY too long and already a massive waste of my time as it is. Instead, I will be writing just a re-cap of the entire debate as a whole, for which I feel my opponent failed to prove that I used "dishonest tactics" in order to win. *** <strong>1. Re: What exactly did you hope to gain through this argument other than proving that homosexuals COULD have the characteristics to raise children properly? </strong> 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. 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. Instead, you've wasted everybody's time (and continue to do so) instead of just acknowledging that what I was saying was correct. I personally explained why I believe it's a strong arguent in my favor; you disagree. That's for the audience to decide - not you. Hence the point of a debate. 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. 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. It's just you failing to comply with typical debate protocol of responding to all of my arguments, and either 1) negating, 2) undermining or 3) conceding them. <strong> Re: 2. Obviously there will be benefits to being raised by two parents, for obvious reasons (which I pointed out). Con was simply trying to use other gay marriage arguments ("think of the kids they'll adopt!") into the debate which had nothing to do with the resolution. However, whether or not same-sex couples are better than a single parent means absolutely nothing. </strong> This is completely wrong. MouthWash STILL cannot grasp the simple point I was trying to make. I guess I have to repeat myself again. Let's go back to square one. First, MouthWash and I both agree that having two parents are better than one. Additionally, 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?! No, I'm sure you still don't get it. So I'll say it again. 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 <em>couples.</em> Throughout the debate, MW intended to prove that a gay couple was in fact inferior to a straight couple. I was using this study as an example of things found beneficial among couples, and challenging my opponent to find a benefit that did not apply to gay couples. This is very easy to understand (for most people). You'll also notice that the "Think of the kids that the gays will adopt!" comment had absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Pro is blatantly lying or misconstruing my argument. Once again he's proven that he is the one being intentionally dishonest. Re: <strong> 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. </strong> And as *I* have said, this is completely irrlevant. 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. <strong>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.</strong> Copy and paste whatever quotes of mine that you're referring to, and source them accordingly. Why? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. This looks like a stream of conscious rant and does not explain a specific complaint. I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding you. Multiple people in the comments section have commented that you aren't remotely capable of presenting a coherent argument. What's your point here? You're cherry picking random sentences that I allegedly made about homosexualus NEVER having certain qualities. Out of context, I can't remember what we were talking about in order to be able to adequately defend or explain what I was referring to. It's unfair for you to expect me and the audience to re-read this entire juvenile, ridiculously long debate multiple times just because you're incapable of providing a clear contention. 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. While men are known to have more testosterone than women, plenty of women have more testosterone than men and vice versa even if that's not the norm. Yes, we only have to argue norms for the sake of this debate to an extent. However, gay and straight people do NOT have the same norms which I've explained multiple times. For example, lesbians are known to have more testosterone than straight women. http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.sherdog.net... http://webspace.ship.edu... 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. 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. 3. <strong> 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. </strong> What I said: <em> 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.</em> 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. 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 - 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. <strong>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.</strong> 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. 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. <strong>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." </strong> 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. 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. 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? My response: <em> 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. </em> As you can see, there's nothing dishonest about my rebuttal or assessment of Pro's bad arguments. <strong>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. </strong> 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. <strong>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.</strong> 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. His (bad, DROPPED) argument on the relationship between homosexuality and depression was in fact anecdotal, but regardless, a moot point because both of these contentions were DROPPED. Ergo, they were not relevant to the judging process of the debate so not used as a "dishonest tactic" for me to win. MouthWash, stop wasting our time. I explained this in the last round. Drop the contentions that just make you look foolish and have absolutely nothing to do with establishing your case whatsoever. <strong> 5. Re: What she was doing here was pretending that she had won something when she simply rehashed an illelvant 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.</strong> 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? 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. Pro also failed to explain how gay *relationships* hurt a child, because, as he admits, he dropped the contention regarding gay relationships and depression. It's pretty clear that any time I called out MouthWash for failing to respond to one of MY arguments, he accuses me of strawmanning his. Look at what he said in 4b - "the fact that sex lives don't affect parenting skills had no bearing on my case." 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. <strong> 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. </strong> Let's see what I said: <em> "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. </em> 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. <strong> 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.</strong> 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. 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. 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 <strong> 8. Re: Ah. Now she "accidentally" glossed over it, while conveniently shifting the blame to me for not using a proper format. However, this was done in R2, when the debate had not yet become convoluted. </strong> 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. <strong> I said "strawman," but a better term for it would have been "red herring." She did not miss it, she merely thinks that this point is minor so she decided to play dumb. </strong> 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 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. He has simply accused me of "strawmanning" him or using other fallacies every time I pointed out that he failed to respond to one of my arguments. <strong>9. Re: What I meant by "biological ties" was that homosexuality was entirely biological and hereditary. </strong> 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. 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. 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. <strong> 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.</strong> 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. <strong>10. Re: Here's what you said: "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." However, these conclusions were the result of strawmen, red herrings, and lies, which I pointed out. I didn't intend to give the impression that she was trying to deduct sources solely because I cited the same source three times, I was simply pointing out how incredibly ridiculous it was.</strong> 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. <strong>11. Re: Taking irrelevant things and assigning them importance fits my definition of dishonesty, especially when it is taken to the point of absurdness.</strong> 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. <strong>12. Re: Sarantakos's results showed that there were negative effects on children raised by same-sex parents. The first graph documents how the studies were done... </strong> 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 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." Throughout our debate, he accuses me of forcing him to go above the limit, when meanwhile he had to utilize thousands upon thousands of characters of extra space just to post and explain his case completely separate from me. 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. 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. 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..." 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. I also still stand by the fact that he hasn't explained why his sources or studies are superior.