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

My fellow debaters, What a bittersweet moment - sweet because this debate is finally over; bitter because it was a massive waste of time for all of us. Indeed, my opponent has completely failed in every sense of the word to provide a shred of evidence that I was remotely "dishonest" in our last debate. At absolute best, he noted my mistake in suggesting that he did not provide any sources in one round when in fact he had. However, as I have already explained, he made several mistakes in posting his sources in the first place - as well as completely misused and abused the privilege of providing sources in external links - so my suggestion that he had failed to provide sources was not dishonest, but a legitimate (and completely understandable) mistake. Mouthwash never denied that he did make mistakes while posting his sources, and didn't respond to my allegations that he had cheated (going over the character limit) in posting them in the first place (because it's true), meaning his sources should have been disqualified and not considered to begin with. Even considering that minor discrepancy, I was not dishonest. Dishonest is defined as "intended to mislead or cheat." Has Mouthwas proven that I was intentionally deceitful? Let's see. First, Mouthwash continuously insists I strawmanned him - an allegation I've proven false. To reiterate, my point was that there were no good parenting qualities inherent to heterosexuals or that homosexuals generally did not possess. Mouthwash responded, "Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case." I said in response to it being generally not the case, "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." As you can see, I did NOT strawman him. I RESPONDED to him. I challenged him to back up his supposition that it is "generally not the case" that gay parents can exhibit the same good parenting qualities as heterosexual parents. There is nothing dishonest about that.Point 2 - Mouthwash says it's "obvious" that two gay parents can provide the same benefits (of dual parenting) as straight parents. Great! Then he agrees that this was a point in my favor. There was nothing "dishonest" about this contention even if he finds it "obvious." The merit of my point was clearly for the audience to decide. Mouthwash says, "Yes, I did concede this, but... 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." Mouthwash is upset because I said "This point goes to Pro." However, there is NOTHING I repeat NOTHING dishonest about saying "The point goes to Pro" if Mouthwash conceded it. I did win that point. He conceded it.Point 3 - Mouthwash says, "I said that you were shifting the burden because you were acting like I needed to refute something that was irrelevant." I shouldn't have to repeat this: it is up to the AUDIENCE to decide whether or not my contentions are "irrelevant." Mouthwash seems to believe that he only has to defend his case, and not argue against mine. Granted, the audience might agree... but I am still entitled to point out that he hasn't responded to or negated certain contentions that I thought were in my favor. This is obvious. It's also not dishonest.Point 4 references a dropped argument from the first debate; I've already explained why it is completely irrelevant to this debate given that dropped arguments were not considered eligible in the judging process of our first debate to begin with. Besides, I've responded to Pro's accusations. The audience can extend my rebuttal to point 4 from the precvious 2 rounds if they want to consider dropped arguments from the first debate as relevant. It's a waste of time (and uneasy on the eyes) to copy and paste what I've already said. The same goes with point 5. Please extend my previous rebuttal. I didn't strawman Mouthwash's argument; I was extending my own. This is the theme of his accusations of "dishonesty." In Point 6, Mouthwash says "I never argued that biological ties were necessary, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to strawman me." Of course, he is the one continuously embarrassing himself in every sense of the word given that this admission coincides with my argument: biological ties are not necessary for good parenting. Therefore, non-biological parents (like a non-related mother or father), OR a significant male/female role models in a child's life can provide the same or similar benefits that mothers and fathers typically provide their children if sex (gender) > biology. Thank you, Mouthwash, for again conceding arguments in my favor and once again failing to prove any dishonesty on my part. Point 7 basically repeats #6, except Mouthwash says for the second time that I "didn't include what his sources said" when I was responding to him. I've already pointed out how neither myself nor the audience is expected to consider the arguments of his sources as his own arguments. I was responsible for responding to what he said IN THE DEBATE, not what his external sources said unless they were specifically and directly referenced via quote. Since he cheated (dishonestly) and used an infinite amount of characters, he could have provided the direct quotes of anything he expected me or the voters to include as part of his case. Otherwise, it's moot.Point 8 - "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." Same whine. How legitimate my arguments are should be decided by the audience, and I am allowed to repeat myself as many times as I want, especially if I stay within the character limit. Point 9 was based on another dropped (completely irrelevant to this debate) contention. Extend my rebuttal to Point 9 from the last round, which explains why Mouthwash is both a) wrong and b) completely wasting our time by complaining about an argument that we both agreed to drop from the first debate.In Point 10, Mouthwash insists I was "dishonest" in what I said about his sources. He writes, "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." Right there he admits I wasn't dishonest. I explained why I noted that as relevant (so it didn't seem like he used more sources than he really did). He's also being dishonest now by leaving out the multiple other I provided as for why he should lose the Sources point. Regardless, I wasn't dishonest here - I wasn't even wrong by his own admission (he just didn't like my argument). Point 11 is pretty ridiculous. I said, "Wrongly accusing me of using fallacious reasoning multiple times resulted in my opponent's own red herrings. Further, completely unnecessary comments like 'I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response" is rude and borderline ad hominem - insulting me in general as opposed to dissecting the arguments.'" There was nothing dishonest about why I suggested I had better conduct in our initial debate. Suggesting this as a "dishonest" tactic on my part is absurd. Point 12 is about MW's sources, which I have already responded to previously and addressed at the opening of this debate.CONCLUSION: I'll end this debate here considering I promised not to go above 8K characters for the final round (which has been pretty hard). I really shouldn't have had to say much in this round anyhow. sfter all, I already negated Mouthwash's accusations in the previous 2 rounds (as well as our first debate). Please keep in mind that Pro had to prove I was intentionally deceitful (dishonest), whereas all he's done is claim that I repeated "irrelevant" contentions or "strawmanned" him (both of which I refuted). The end.