Ignoring the point
<"a suicide bombing is a heinous crime, inflicting terrible pain and loss on innocent people. So is a helicopter rocket attack on civilian housing. Neither is "aimed" at children, though both kill children"
Bowser may be the only person on the face of this planet that would argue that a suicide bomber sent into a daycare center was not "aiming" at children.
When you choose the weak side of an argument you can't afford to concede a point no matter how obvious it may be.
It is no different than arguing that the holocaust did not happen. You can always take a position and defend it if you are willing to take the gaff.
This is all fine if there is a time limit to the debate but it loses it's appeal when it goes on endlessly.