You made this claim:
"He's yet another exercise carb-junkie who thinks that sugar is no different from starch, and therefore just as good."
Which is not backed up by anything quoted from those blog entries. You quote one line with Aragon acknowledging Lustig's qualifications in general, though ultimately rejecting Lustig's claims in this case in what you characterize as character assassination, though his own tone is much less barbed than your own. You do quote him implying the oposite of your own implication that he thinks sugar is harmless, and follow it with a claim that the high doses are not to be dismissed likely, which if you had cited evidence that his claim about the sugar intake is not as low as he claims it is would be relevant.
Your other quotes are simply expressions taken out of context. None of them bear evidence of the claim that he thinks sugar is no different from starch, nor that he's a "carb junkie" nor that whatever a "carb junkie" is disqualifies his view.
Let's compare what you cite as character assasination versus what you would presumably not call such in your own posts:
Aragon: preaching the gospel
You: Fox News yellow journalism
You: lying bs tactics
So, your quotes do not answer either Aragon's evidence, or my own point that you are building a straw man reading into Aragon things he did not in fact write.
I did not claim either that you were arrogant, or that you were commiting yellow journalism. Only that you were resorting to personalities rather than arguments, even as you accused Aragon for having done so. Then you dismiss the research that Aragon did as though looking up what other scientific studies have had to say is somehow invalid instead of, as is the case, what any scientist is obliged to do anyway.
Notice that Aragon's response to what he felt was cherry-picking was to dig up more studies relating to the issue at hand. Your response to this is to call Aragon's research cherry-picking and then... nothing. You don't cite any research that you can fairly claim Aragon has ignored, consciously or otherwise.
As for raising questions based on studies that seem to contradict what Lustig says, that is the reason studies are published in the first place. Scientists are in fact responsible for having an answer to disconfirming evidence. Now, if you have evidence that the studies Aragon cites are methodologically flawed or themselves stand refuted by other studies similar in scope or methodology or even by arguing that the studies cited to not show what the other party claims they show, these are legitimate ways to question how scientific his response is. It is even valid to point out when studies brought to bear are generated in a research mill funded by an advocacy group. None of this you have done, yet that is the kind of evidence that a claim of cherry-picking demands. Claiming, on the other hand, that it's simply unscientific to cite studies is a grave misapprehension of what science is. Again, that is what studies are for. That is how the discipline of science was quite self-consciously designed.