There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one. There are also logical arguments for supporting XT. Both Gavin and Mike are good at writing articles outlining such arguments (e.g., read Hearn's Crash Landing post). Ultimately, as I've already said, the difference is in the axioms -- the assumptions about what Bitcoin is or should be -- assumptions about what might occur in the future. This becomes clear if one reads the actual arguments both sides make (when it's not just ad hominem). Most people who've followed the block size issue for a while are aware of the arguments on both sides.

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.