Instigator / Pro
3
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic

Sexual intercourse has a uniform design

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
0
2
Conduct points
1
2

With 2 votes and 11 points ahead, the winner is ...

oromagi
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1929
rating
99
debates
98.99%
won
Description
~ 1,481 / 5,000

Debate. Org Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes. For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

In spite of all the forms of contraception including abortion, Recreational purposes and hedonistic agendas, Male and female sexual relations has a uniform design for a reproduction of life. With this attitude, Many problems surrounding sexual activity can be cleared up.

Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns. That's in our well being and health, In our relationships with people and not last but in our financial matters.

A huge strain is made with the attitude taken to coitus to be just a stress reliever like a cigarette. Like it's a high with liquor or any of the variations of intoxicants.

So with this solid attitude towards this thing as the topic statement describes, It is true. It will change the face of child abandonment.

Please comment, Send a message for clarity or questions.

Round 1
Pro
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
Thanks, Mall.

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE has a UNIFORM DESIGN

OBJECTION:

PRO has omitted PRO's R1 argument.  CON calls this a tactical ambush by PRO: an effort to shift the burden for making an affirmative argument to CON, relieving PRO of the ordinary responsibility of the INSTIGATOR to provide an affirmative case against which the CONTENDER may defend.  Which in turn shifts the perceived burden of proof to the CONTENDER.

IF PRO intended to make no R1 affirmative case, PRO should have made those intentions clear in the debate description, alerting potential CONTENDERS to the shifty maneuver and allowing the CONTENDER to refuse or else accept the challenge apprised of PRO's tactic and accept that point explicitly.  CON calls lack of prior consent grounds for declaring PRO's R1 FORFEIT and CON asks VOTERS to treat PRO's R1 as such.

Furthermore, PRO asks for VOTERS' indulgence in the setting of terms and definitions which our INSTIGATOR has likewise failed to proffer for acceptance.

DEFINITIONS:

  1. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE [noun] is "coitus or genital-genital sexual contact.  Sexual interaction, usually involving vaginal and/or anal and/or oral penetration, between at least two organisms."
  2. UNIFORM [adj]  is "unvarying; all the same."
  3. DESIGN [noun] is "Intention or plot.
    •  To be hateful of the truth by design.
    • (particularly) malicious or malevolent intention.
    • To have evil designs.
BURDEN of PROOF:

WiKiPEDiA advises:

  • "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
    • PRO is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims. 
    • The BURDEN of PROOF remains PRO's in spite of PRO's tactical forfeit.
CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that any time any organism bumps some junk with some other organism's bumpy junk, each and every organism is bumping with the exact same intention and purpose (procreation) every time. 
  • For example, if PRO's proposition were true, PRO should be able to prove that the Praying Mantis doinks her mate with all the same intentions as a lesbian at a hot tub orgy.
  • CON will argue this claim unprovable.

R1DESCRIPTION:

(RE:  Debate. Org Disclaimer: check your website)

In spite of all the forms of contraception including abortion, Recreational purposes and hedonistic agendas, Male and female sexual relations has a uniform design for a reproduction of life. 
  • Well, that's not true. 
    • All-lesbian hot tub orgies are never initiated for the purpose of baby-making.
    • All-lesbian hot tub orgies seldom if ever culminate in the beheading and cannibalism of some participants although such behavior is commonplace in mantises.
      • "Sexual cannibalism is common among most predatory species of mantises in captivity. It has sometimes been observed in natural populations, where about a quarter of male-female encounters result in the male being eaten by the female.  Around 90% of the predatory species of mantises exhibit sexual cannibalism.  Adult males typically outnumber females at first, but their numbers may be fairly equivalent later in the adult stage, possibly because females selectively eat the smaller males.  In Tenodera sinensis, 83% of males escape cannibalism after an encounter with a female, but since multiple matings occur, the probability of a male's being eaten increases cumulatively. The female may begin feeding by biting off the male's head (as they do with regular prey), and if mating has begun, the male's movements may become even more vigorous in its delivery of sperm."
  • Since the intent and purpose (design) of all-lesbian hot tub orgies differs dramatically from the intent and purpose of praying mantises at coitus, PRO's description of that act as UNIFORM, as all the same,  stands disproved.
Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns. That's in our well being and health, In our relationships with people and not last but in our financial matters.
  • What is PRO's evidence for this "breakdown" claim? 
    • CON finds that most scientific evidence refutes PRO's claim.
      • A 2009 study, Eisenberg, et al, Casual Sex and Psychological Health Among Young Adults: Is Having “Friends with Benefits” Emotionally Damaging? concluded:
        • "Young adults who engage in casual sexual encounters do not appear to be at greater risk for harmful psychological outcomes than sexually active young adults in more committed relationships."
      • A 2014 study, Vrangalova and Ong, Who Benefits From Casual Sex? The Moderating Role of Sociosexuality found:
        • "As predicted, sociosexuality moderated the effect of casual sex on well-being on a weekly basis across 12 consecutive weeks, over one semester, and over one academic year. Sociosexually unrestricted students typically reported higher well-being after having casual sex compared to not having casual sex; there were no such differences among restricted individuals. Few gender differences were found."
      • "It’s perfectly OK to want to explore casual sex — there are plenty of benefits for those who care to partake. “You can discover a lot about yourself; what you like and don't like, what works for you,” says Gigi Engle, a sex educator and writer, “It's a great way to meet interesting people and explore different sexual tastes you might not otherwise.”  Sex boosts endorphins and feel-good hormones. Engle advises going about it in a healthy, empowered way — meaning not as a way to make yourself feel better or as a way to derive self-worth."
    • Seems like a lot of experts think otherwise.  What evidence specifically reports "breakdowns?"
A huge strain is made with the attitude taken to coitus to be just a stress reliever like a cigarette. Like it's a high with liquor or any of the variations of intoxicants.
  • In fact, many experts say that sex works great as a stress reliever, even if no baby-making is intended.
    • Alexander, et al, Trial of Stress Reduction for Hypertension in Older African Americans finds:
      • "The results of our subgroup analyses indicate the feasibility and short-term efficacy of the use of stress-reduction approaches in the treatment of hypertension in older African Americans of both sexes who are at high as well as low risk for six hypertension-related measures of risk: obesity, alcohol use, psychosocial stress, dietary sodium-to-potassium ratio, physical inactivity, and presence of multiple risks."
    • Brecher reports in the International Journal of Health Services:
      • "Sexual arousal appears to increase testosterone levels in males.  This article shows that increased testosterone has a number of health-promoting effects and that good sexual functioning is a health issue not only in itself, but also in its effects on general health as well."
It will change the face of child abandonment
  • Actually, sexual humans can have sex for procreation but still abandon the product of that sex.  Causes include:
    • Poverty and homelessness
    • lack of resources
      • too many children already
    • Divorce
    • Social stigma
    • Parental disability and substance abuse
    • Parental imprisonment or deportation
    • Child disability or congenital disorders
    • Undesired gender
    • Socioeconomic disruption, war, natural disasters, etc.
  • What is "it' exactly?  Is PRO proposing some policy or plan to exclude non-procreative sex in all species?
R1PRO1

PRO has forfeited PRO's R1.

R1CON1:

  • Let's recall that the first organisms capable of sexual reproduction only evolved about 1.2 billion years ago, during the latest quarter of life's history on Earth.
    • That is, life had already figured out how to reproduce itself by cell division and had been doing so for billions of years before adapting sexual reproduction.
      • Asexual reproduction is far more efficient that sex:
        • "Asexual reproduction can proceed by budding, fission, or spore formation and does not involve the union of gametes, which accordingly results in a much faster rate of reproduction compared to sexual reproduction, where 50% of offspring are males and unable to produce offspring themselves."
        • Since "sexual reproduction is not associated with any clear reproductive advantages, as compared with asexual, there should be some important advantages in evolution."
          • That is, whatever the purpose, intent, or design of sexual congress, the reason cannot be exclusively for the purpose of reproduction since life figured out how to handle that without sex long before life evolved sex as a successful adaptation.
            • Some advantages of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction incude:
              • genetic variation
              • mutation protection
              • generation of novel genotypes
              • parasite protection
              • DNA repair and mutation clearance
CONCLUSION:

  • PRO has failed to show that sex is only for reproduction.  Asexual reproduction is far more efficient and many organisms use sexual intercourse for a variety of purposes beyond baby-making.  PRO's thesis stands disproved.
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response, if any.
SOURCES:

Round 2
Pro
"PRO has failed to show that sex is only for reproduction.  Asexual reproduction is far more efficient and many organisms use sexual intercourse for a variety of purposes beyond baby-making.  PRO's thesis stands disproved."

So here it is in a nutshell. Minus the asexual matter, it's irrelevant here. 

Now isn't by the design and structure of a thing that indicates the intent of use? 

Aside from it's uniform intent, I'll have multiple purposes of my own use, sure to my heart's desire. A vehicular tire round in circumference, has tread, grooves to grip traction, with rubber material. As we learn of it's structural traits, we discover that the shape allows for mobility. That's one part of it, then there's the specifically selected material that serves to complement another object exactly.That is an entity that will not very easily cause the tire to lose way or become unsteady.

We can see where the basic standard operation is to take place with this tire. 

Of course I can dismiss that and utilize this rotund object for a swing. Perhaps as part of an obstacle course or a planter.
So we can use things any old kind of way. Doesn't change the innate intent. All we have to do is really observe the result comparing the breakdowns to the build ups if you will.





Con

Thanks, Mall.

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE has a UNIFORM DESIGN

OBJECTION:

PRO has made no response to CON's objection

DEFINITIONS:

By lack of objection, PRO accepts all definitions

BURDEN of PROOF:

By lack of objection, PRO accepts full burden of proof.

CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that any time any organism bumps some junk with some other organism's bumpy junk, each and every organism is bumping with the exact same intention and purpose (procreation) every time. 

R1DESCRIPTION:

  • PRO dropped CON's evidence demonstrating the lack of sexual uniformity between a praying mantises' eating her mate while mating and a bunch of hot-tub lesbians who seldom if ever cannibalize their mates much less while a la hot-tub.
  • PRO dropped CON's request for evidence establishing :
    • Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns.
      • PRO dropped CON's expert reports establishing casual sex as a generally healthy activity and that sex for solely relaxation purposes had some positive medical benefits.
  • PRO dropped CON's request to specify "it"  What will change the face of child abandonment?
  • PRO dropped CON's reminder that children are abandoned for many causes beyond simply unwanted pregnancy.

R1PRO1

PRO has forfeited PRO's R1.

R2PRO2:

"Now isn't by the design and structure of a thing that indicates the intent of use? 

Aside from it's uniform intent, I'll have multiple purposes of my own use, sure to my heart's desire. A vehicular tire round in circumference, has tread, grooves to grip traction, with rubber material. As we learn of it's structural traits, we discover that the shape allows for mobility. That's one part of it, then there's the specifically selected material that serves to complement another object exactly.That is an entity that will not very easily cause the tire to lose way or become unsteady.

We can see where the basic standard operation is to take place with this tire. 

Of course I can dismiss that and utilize this rotund object for a swing. Perhaps as part of an obstacle course or a planter.
So we can use things any old kind of way. Doesn't change the innate intent. All we have to do is really observe the result comparing the breakdowns to the build ups if you will."
  • CON accepts PRO's tire metaphor as useful for disproving PRO's point.
    • A car tire does not have any intent of any kind, innate or otherwise.
    • What PRO seems to be talking about is one's personal capacity to perceive an object's function by analyzing design.  A car tire becomes a wheel in our minds, the tire is not communicating information.
    • CON doesn't accept PRO's application of hierarchy of use, that objects like tires have some true use or destiny as car wheels, ranked as more authentic than secondary uses, "any old kind of way".  PRO seems to be saying that a tire swing or a tire planter is somehow less legitimate than the commonplace usage.  CON doesn't accept this.  Design is for our use and satisfaction.  If one has no need of transportation, a tire as wheel seems less relevant than a tire as planter or swing.  How does this ranking of primary function as superior function inform CON's claims regarding sexuality?
R1CON1:

  • PRO dismissed the whole of CON's affirmative as irrelevant without much explanation:
    • Minus the asexual matter, it's irrelevant here. 
    • Irrelevant?  The superior efficiency of asexual reproduction trashes PRO's case.  PRO failed to respond to CON's evidence that asexual reproduction is the oldest and most efficient reproductive strategy for biological organisms, disproving that sexual form dictates primary function and elevates that function as "design"  Organisms did not adapt to sex because they were trying to improve procreative efficiency.  As we saw, quite the opposite.  Organisms adapted to sex to trade procreation efficiency for other refinements in social development, including please, intimacy, commerce, gratification.
  • PRO must refute this case or concede this debate.
CONCLUSION:

  • PRO has failed to show that sex is only for reproduction.  Asexual reproduction is far more efficient and many organisms use sexual intercourse for a variety of purposes beyond baby-making.  PRO's thesis stands disproved.
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R3 response.
SOURCES:

Round 3
Pro
I can barely follow much of what you're communicating.
I'll attempt to put this back on the rails in layman's terms to where I can understand. It should help you to keep this exchange plain and simple.


Let's us start with some basic questions directed to you, not in third person.


Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? 

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OUR MEANING HUMANS HAVE SEXUAL ORGANS WITHOUT INTENT OTHER THAN SUBJECTIVE INFLUENCE?

DO YOU BELIEVE OUR EYES, EARS AND HANDS HAVE AN INTENT IN AND OF THEMSELVES?

ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AS DIRECTLY AS ASKED PLEASE.

Now whether you've learned this yet or not, things do have specific designs. We can observe this. That's your source right there. First hand observation. We also observe these designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of. Unless we choose to turn a blind eye, we obtain EMPIRICAL data. Factual information via observation of the design and result is gained.

Now you can't argue, you cannot argue one iota that regardless of the design,  it can't be defied. I haven't made that argument. I can argue and be correct in doing so that defying the order DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS. SEE , WITHOUT OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION, NO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ESTABLISHED FACT. THEREFORE NO RIGHT AND WRONG. Which heads into liberalism but we won't go there.
I won't even go any further with analogies. What's the use of them when the most simplest , plainest ones go over someone's head.

So here's the issue which I think could make this whole thing futile. That is as it appears, we may have a foundational problem. If you don't see an objective purpose  in sexual intercourse, you disagree at the start of the criteria for this debate.
The criteria by the way is only dealing with SEXUAL intercourse between male and female. Human beings if you neeeeded that spelled out.

But you can't argue at all here when there's a fundamental difference. You can only get so far which in this case, barely 2 centimeters out of the gate.








Con
Thanks, Mall.

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE has a UNIFORM DESIGN

CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that any time any organism bumps some junk with some other organism's bumpy junk, each and every organism is bumping with the exact same intention and purpose (procreation) every time. 

R3DESCRIPTION:

  • PRO dropped CON's evidence demonstrating the lack of sexual uniformity between a praying mantises' eating her mate while mating and a bunch of hot-tub lesbians who seldom if ever cannibalize their mates much less while a la hot-tub.
  • PRO dropped CON's request for evidence establishing :
    • Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns.
      • PRO dropped CON's expert reports establishing casual sex as a generally healthy activity and that sex for solely relaxation purposes had some positive medical benefits.
  • PRO dropped CON's request to specify "it"  What will change the face of child abandonment?
  • PRO dropped CON's reminder that children are abandoned for many causes beyond simply unwanted pregnancy.

R3PRO1

  • PRO has forfeited PRO's R1.

R3PRO2:

  • PRO dropped CON's critique of the tire metaphor, disproving that objects have some inherent right use or wrong use.  The right and wrong of it is all in the satisfaction of the needs of living.
  • PRO ignored CON's question:
    • "How does this ranking of primary function as superior function inform CON's claims regarding sexuality?"
R3CON1:

  • PRO dismissed the whole of CON's affirmative as irrelevant without explanation.
  • PRO ignored CON's direct challenge:
    • "PRO must refute this case or concede this debate."
      • PRO replies, "I can barely follow much of what you're communicating."
    • VOTERS will note PRO has made no refutation and so conclude that PRO concedes.
R3PRO3:

  • PRO questions:
    • Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? 
      • No
    • DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OUR MEANING HUMANS HAVE SEXUAL ORGANS WITHOUT INTENT OTHER THAN SUBJECTIVE INFLUENCE?
      • Unparseable, so no.
    • DO YOU BELIEVE OUR EYES, EARS AND HANDS HAVE AN INTENT IN AND OF THEMSELVES?
      • No.  Separate an ear or an eye from the animal that grew that object and its function rapidly diminishes to nil.  A severed hand has no inherent intent.
R3PRO4:

  • Now whether you've learned this yet or not, things do have specific designs. We can observe this. That's your source right there. First hand observation. We also observe these designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of. Unless we choose to turn a blind eye, we obtain EMPIRICAL data. Factual information via observation of the design and result is gained.
    • Condescension aside, CON doesn't buy PRO's unwarranted assertion.
      • Firstly, much of the knowable universe is unobservable.
        • EXAMPLEH2O is a thing.  What are the observable "designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of" for H2O?  Don't those observations change according to temperature and pressure?  How does the observer determine whether gas, liquid, or solid is the primary, unchangeable nature and innate intent of H2O and which functions are secondary, non-standard functions?  What is the intent of H2O in an of itself and not as defined by its use by living creatures?
        • EXAMPLEGravitational waves are things.  What are the observable "designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of" for gravitational waves?  What is the intent of a gravitational wave in an of itself and not as defined by its observation by living creatures?
        • EXAMPLETwo-dimensional space is a thing.  What are the observable "designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of" for  two-dimensional space?  What is the intent of the second dimension in an of itself and not as defined by its use by living creatures?
          • Plato's Cave refutes PRO.  We humans are bound to a single planet, a single dimension and a singular progression of time- we define our reality as best we can according to our capacity to perceive but we delude ourselves by thinking that we perceive the whole of reality or even sufficient reality to confidently assert intention without qualification.
          • Many observations are altered by the act of observation, described as the Observer Effect in physics. 
            • EXAMPLE: An observer can't see an object without bouncing some light off the object, which changes the nature of the object just prior to observation.
            • EXAMPLE:  Going back to PRO's tire, PRO can't measure the air pressure of his tire without depressing the poppet on the tire's Schrader valve, thereby releasing some air and changing the air pressure just prior to observation.
      • Secondly, sexual intercourse is an action and not a thing.  The intent of any action is defined by the actor, the living creature and not by some inherent objective intent beyond the actor's contribution.
      • Thirdly, PRO's argument demands an original intention preceding creation and life which implies some Intelligent Designer or Unmoved Mover which PRO has yet to discuss.
        • PRO leaves that actor out of the discussion because to acknowledge the assigner of true intention to every object requires proof of GOD, which is famously unprovable.
      • Fourthly, even after establishing universal assignment of true intent (which PRO has no hope of proving), PRO is still left with the problem of demonstrating that procreation is the primary intent of sexual intercourse uniformly across the spectrum of all living organisms as well as the complexity of all human society.
R3PRO5:

  • Now you can't argue, you cannot argue one iota that regardless of the design,  it can't be defied. I haven't made that argument. I can argue and be correct in doing so that defying the order DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS.
    • OK- so let's go back to our H2O analogy. 
      • PRO observes a pool of water and determines the water is good for plants and animals to drink and so calls  the uniform intent of H2Oj "for drinking."
        • Later on, PRO discovers that H2O is also good for swimming and floating boats. 
          • Does PRO redefine the intent of H2O? 
            • No, because that would disprove PRO's assertion of UNIFORM DESIGN, so PRO calls swimming and boating "defiance" of design, which must not change H2O's original purpose of hydration.
        • Later on, PRO discovers that the temperature has dropped and the H2O is now ice.
          • Now the H2O is no longer useful for its true purpose of drinking or even for its bastard, defiant purpose of floating boats but the H2O does support new "defiant" purposes as a platform for walking or for refrigeration of beer.
            • How does PRO continue to insist on UNIFORM design based on some observable original intent when the original function is no longer possible but new functions are observably inherent in response to unobserved influences?
        • Later on, PRO discovers that the temperature has increased and the H2O is now steam.
          • None of the prior "intents" of the object are relevant and new functions are now possible.
    • Therefore, PRO's argument that everything has some observable, original intent must be false, because every observation is necessarily incomplete.
R3PRO6:

  • SEE , WITHOUT OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION, NO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ESTABLISHED FACT. THEREFORE NO RIGHT AND WRONG. Which heads into liberalism but we won't go there.  I won't even go any further with analogies. What's the use of them when the most simplest , plainest ones go over someone's head.
    • Right and wrong are human perceptions, the application of human values.  There is no "right and wrong" beyond human application.  There is no right or wrong on the Moon or within the Sun or inherent to any plant or animal.
      • PRO asserts that we should begin by stipulating certain conclusions, establishing a foundation of facts before observation and hypothesis. 
      • CON asserts that hypothesis, observation, testing should precede conclusions.
      • CON asserts that the establishment of any fact is always contingent on changes to conditions and new observations. 
        • Scientific theory depends on testable, repeatable results before any factual assertion. 
        • Religious theory establishes facts first then rules out any non-conforming observations, making theories generally untestable and unrepeatable- and therefore, unreliable.
  • So here's the issue which I think could make this whole thing futile. That is as it appears, we may have a foundational problem. If you don't see an objective purpose  in sexual intercourse, you disagree at the start of the criteria for this debate.
    • PRO is saying if we don't accept that sexual intercourse was designed for the purpose of procreation, then PRO can't prove that intercourse has a UNIFORM design. 
    • PRO and CON agree that PRO's argument is futile. 
    • PRO set no criteria for acceptance in this debate.
      • PRO must prove objective purpose to prove design, right? 
      • CON calls rejecting objective purpose fair game.
  • The criteria by the way is only dealing with SEXUAL intercourse between male and female. Human beings if you neeeeded that spelled out.
    • OBJECTION:
      • PRO failed to define terms in the description and then forfeited R1, ceding any authority for setting terms to CON.  PRO's accepted those terms in R2 by lack of objection.
        • PRO has no authority to set terms in R3 of a 4-round debate.  CON's definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE as genital-genital sexual contact between at least two organisms is the standard for this debate.  VOTERS should consider any gender combination and any number of organisms in any combination as SEXUAL INTERCOURSE for the purposes of evaluating UNIFORM DESIGN.
          • CON made this standard explicit by comparing hot tub lesbian orgies to praying mantises in the R1 setting of terms.
  • CON looks forward to PRO's R4 response.
SOURCES:

  • Pls. find sources in comments.

Round 4
Pro
  • "PRO questions:
    • Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? 
No"


So if you're not claiming there is no intent in design, would you agree that a design exists based on specific intent?



"DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OUR MEANING HUMANS HAVE SEXUAL ORGANS WITHOUT INTENT OTHER THAN SUBJECTIVE INFLUENCE?

Unparseable, so no."

So you can agree that there is intent therein besides personal intent.

"DO YOU BELIEVE OUR EYES, EARS AND HANDS HAVE AN INTENT IN AND OF THEMSELVES?

No.  Separate an ear or an eye from the animal that grew that object and its function rapidly diminishes to nil.  A severed hand has no inherent intent."

In and of themselves doesn't mean separate from the body. At least when I say it. It means specifically the nature therein. Like anything in and of itself has its essential make-up. Don't you accept that each part of the body has an exclusive living function?

See I will continue to make this straightforward and short. It's not complicated.



Con
Thanks, Mall.

SEXUAL INTERCOURSE has a UNIFORM DESIGN

CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that any time any organism bumps some junk with some other organism's bumpy junk, each and every organism is bumping with the exact same intention and purpose (procreation) every time. 

R4DESCRIPTION:

  • PRO dropped CON's evidence demonstrating the lack of sexual uniformity between a praying mantises' eating her mate while mating and a bunch of hot-tub lesbians who seldom if ever cannibalize their mates much less while a la hot-tub.
  • PRO dropped CON's request for evidence establishing :
    • Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns.
      • PRO dropped CON's expert reports establishing casual sex as a generally healthy activity and that sex for solely relaxation purposes had some positive medical benefits.
  • PRO dropped CON's request to specify "it"  What will change the face of child abandonment?
  • PRO dropped CON's reminder that children are abandoned for many causes beyond simply unwanted pregnancy.

R4PRO1

  • PRO has forfeited PRO's R1.

R4PRO2:

  • PRO dropped CON's critique of the tire metaphor, disproving that objects have some inherent right use or wrong use.  The right and wrong of it is all in the satisfaction of the needs of living.
  • PRO ignored CON's question:
    • "How does this ranking of primary function as superior function inform CON's claims regarding sexuality?"
R4PRO3:

  • PRO questions:
    • Are you claiming that MALE AND FEMALE PERSONS INVOLVED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EACH OTHER, MALE WITH FEMALE DO NOT HAVE AN INTENT AND DESIGN WHATSOEVER? 
      • No
    • So if you're not claiming there is no intent [and] design, would you agree that a design exists based on specific intent?
      • No
    • DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OUR MEANING HUMANS HAVE SEXUAL ORGANS WITHOUT INTENT OTHER THAN SUBJECTIVE INFLUENCE?
      • Unparseable, so no.
    • So you can agree that there is intent therein besides personal intent?
      • Sure.  For example, a human might have sex to consummate a marriage [satisfying a public intent], rather than procreation.
    • DO YOU BELIEVE OUR EYES, EARS AND HANDS HAVE AN INTENT IN AND OF THEMSELVES?
      • No.  Separate an ear or an eye from the animal that grew that object and its function rapidly diminishes to nil.  A severed hand has no inherent intent.
    • In and of themselves doesn't mean separate from the body. At least when I say it. It means specifically the nature therein. Like anything in and of itself has its essential make-up. Don't you accept that each part of the body has an exclusive living function?
      • No.  Many body part have many non-exclusive functions.  Hand have millions of uses for example.  You can walk on your feet but some animals can also walk on their hands.
R3PRO4:

  • Now whether you've learned this yet or not, things do have specific designs. We can observe this. That's your source right there. First hand observation. We also observe these designs enabling specific functions allowed by exactly what the design is capable of. Unless we choose to turn a blind eye, we obtain EMPIRICAL data. Factual information via observation of the design and result is gained.
  • PRO dropped all four arguments from CON refuting that the true intent of an object can always be discerned by observation
    • Much of the knowable universe is unobservable.
      • PRO dropped this argument.
    • The intent of any action is defined by the actor
      • PRO dropped this argument.
    • PRO has yet to discuss Intelligent Design.
      • PRO dropped this argument.
    • PRO still must prove the primary intent of sexual intercourse uniformly across the spectrum of all living organisms as well as the complexity of all human society.
      • PRO dropped this argument.
R3PRO5:

  • Now you can't argue, you cannot argue one iota that regardless of the design,  it can't be defied. I haven't made that argument. I can argue and be correct in doing so that defying the order DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS.
    • PRO dropped CON's H2O metaphor showing every observation is necessarily incomplete, rendering a complete understanding of objective intent unknowable.
R3PRO6:

  • SEE , WITHOUT OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION, NO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ESTABLISHED FACT. THEREFORE NO RIGHT AND WRONG. Which heads into liberalism but we won't go there.  I won't even go any further with analogies. What's the use of them when the most simplest , plainest ones go over someone's head.
    • PRO dropped CON's assertion that the establishment of any fact is always contingent on changes to conditions and new observations. 
  • So here's the issue which I think could make this whole thing futile. That is as it appears, we may have a foundational problem. If you don't see an objective purpose  in sexual intercourse, you disagree at the start of the criteria for this debate.
    • PRO offered no criteria for acceptance for this debate.  PRO ignored CON's refutation of PRO 's false assertion in R3. 
    • PRO and CON agree that PRO's argument is futile. 
  • The criteria by the way is only dealing with SEXUAL intercourse between male and female. Human beings if you neeeeded that spelled out.
    • PRO ignored CON's R3 OBJECTION that PRO is failing to respect CON's correct definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE after PRO reneged on responsibilities for defining terms of this debate.
R4CON1:

  • PRO dismissed the whole of CON's affirmative as irrelevant without explanation.
  • PRO ignored CON's direct challenge:
    • "PRO must refute this case or concede this debate."
      • PRO replies, "I can barely follow much of what you're communicating."
    • VOTERS will note PRO has made no refutation and so conclude that PRO concedes.
CONCLUSION:

  • CON asks VOTERS to award arguments to CON.
    • PRO failed to prove that every time every organism bumps genitals with some other organisms all participants are participating with same intention and purpose which is exclusively procreation.
      • PRO dropped 14 of CON's counterarguments.
    • PRO refused to engage CON's sole argument, which was that sexual intercourse only evolved in the final quarter of the history of life on Earth and that asexual reproduction has proved far more reliable and efficient as a method of procreation.  Therefore, the adaptation to sexual intercourse must confer advantages above and beyond mere procreation, including improved genetic variation, improved mutation protection and resolution, and parasite protection, which is not to even mention social and emotional advantages in social and emotional organisms.
    • PRO recommended that victory be awarded to the debater who understood a subject better or helped build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to the truth.  CON claims victory on those terms.
  • CON asks VOTERS to note that PRO used no sources.
  • CON asks VOTERS to note that PRO's thesis was significantly hampered by grammatical obscurity.
    • So with this solid attitude towards this thing as the topic statement describes, It is true
    • All we have to do is really observe the result comparing the breakdowns to the build ups if you will.
    • Now you can't argue, you cannot argue one iota that regardless of the design,  it can't be defied.
  • CON already asked VOTERS to award conduct for PRO's unadvertised forfeiture of R1, leaving PRO's thesis and terms mostly undefined.
  • Thanks to Mall for initiating this debate
  • Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
  • Please VOTE CON!