The answer to the question whether a house/home is an asset or a liability mainly lies in the school of thought you come from. From the discussion, its clear that a house may be an asset or may not be an asset. Both could be true.
But when one says a house is a liability, then its totally different from saying a house is not an asset, since something can also be neither an asset nor a liability. The proponents of a 'House is a Liability' need to clarify this without raising any ambiguity in their explanations.
An asset can be defined as anything that has value. Robert K's definition is different in that he says it has to be something that generates cash flow. Again school of thought. IMHO I think its an asset, and when its not, it falls under neither an asset nor a liability. Even if it was mortgaged and its rental income (were it rented out) was below the monthly installment, OR the monthly installments were more than what you were paying as rent previously (if you now live in the house), the difference that you would be paying would still be considered as monthly investment into the home.
Which again would again beg more questions as to whether you can invest in something that can be neither an asset nor a liability. My 2 cents.
Luck is when Preparation meets Opportunity. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca