Should be fun to watch the rest of this unfold. And yes IB Dem's rebut was good anything written by a lib that makes me scream at the PC must be good. lol

There are still glaring holes in both sides arguments in my humble opinion. But they are doing better than I had expected with such a heavily debated topic.

Sorry, Rose; gotta disagree. He still stinks.

Basically he blows off all of Kurtz's reasearch by claiming that the author has an agenda (well yes, Kurtz is firmly against SSM) but provides NO reasoning or evidence to support this. Later he casually dismisses the studies which show that single-parent children are significantly disadvantaged as "cherry picking," and states that studies to the contrary are "merely anecdotal."

Not to mention ad hominem attacks about bigotry, and the smarmy Clintonian "I could compare sources, but I won't" gag. Not to not to mention the backtracking "CYA" of disclaiming earlier remarks.

Arrrgh. Bad, bad, bad! And he still hasn't nailed the big hole the in the Challenger's argument.

Sigh. Man, I was way too hard on Ara. He's head and shoulders above those two...

I was being nice. :-)

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ara, are you not liking this debate or is just the color scheme that bugs you?

I wonder if it's the old "solitare" problem. You remember how easy it is to see good moves on someone else's game?

Maybe it's easier to see flaws in debates we aren't involved in at the time.

Then again, they have 24 hours to reply, don't they?

First of all, Arne, you don't have a damn clue what my position on this issue is; I'm just talking about the technical merits of the debate.

Secondly, I find your use of the word "homos" offensive, even if you were being flippant.

Third, the Defender accuses the Kurtz study of cherry-picking data, and doesn't support that claim. Just proclaiming that, or (as you do) calling a study a logical fallacy (hmm; how can a study be a fallacy? I thought that was limited to arguments, not research results) doesn't make it so. Try supporting the argument next time. That's my complaint about his position: statements without support.

Finally, he does not address the Challengers' main point, as illustrated by that study: that single-parent children are significantly disadvantaged in later life. Neither do you.

Rose, maybe he's unimpressed with the debate so far. :)

Rose:

The color scheme seems .... to have ... induced a strange torpor in me.....ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.

for the benefit of me, Arne? I wasn't even in this thread until it was pointed out that you're trying to hide under my skirts again.

Stop being a pussy. Take responsibility for what you say. Just like a typical liberal. "It's not my fault".

Good grief. Now someone is offended by the word homo? Get over it people. This country has a real case of sand in the pants.

I take offense to this...

Wahhh to that...

Wahhh to this...

To hell with all the sensitivity and politically correct bullshit.

I take offense to Arney Lungscum calling conservatives RW Foamers but you don't hear me bellyaching about it.

Personally I don't see what the big deal about the word homo is anyhow. Gays refer to straights as heteros so what's the difference?

I take offense to the term "pussy", Geoff.

Please try to harness your hate and intolerance.

Hey, at least I didn't mention that Arne was a sperm burping gutter slut.

That would have been offensive.

It wasn't wasted Arney. You were actually funny for a change.

Update: IB changed the color scheme.

I see the intellectual level of this thread took a serious nosedive. (not you, Ara :) )

I'll leave y'all to your junior-high bickering...

I'm offended by your reference to junior high.