I’ll let unbiased observers determine who has refuted whom.
***So will I. Here’s the link to where you had the “straw man within a straw man” argument. It’s the only time I have EVER seen that happen. It’s truly a unique exposition of fallacial reasoning.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=305#305
It's only a "strawman" because you decided to call it that rather than refute my points directly. Instead, you then go on to miss my entire point, creating your own strawman to knock down.
I'd try to educate you further, but you seem closed to the idea of actually understanding this subject, as opposed to flogging your own opinions as unrefuted fact. That's why I gave up responding before -- you will twist anything I say to make yourself look good, even if you have to change the meaning or ignore the point entirely.
So once again, I'm done with the subject. Of course, you'll likely post a response to get in the last word, but don't expect me to continue to try and reason with someone who dismisses all argument as "fallacy" or "strawman". Believe whatever warped fantasy you wish -- your own arguments prove that Intrade is reactive rather than proactive, and is thus no more reliable than the typical MSM poll.