Sexual intercourse has a uniform design

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.
  

• "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.
  

• 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.
  

• 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.
  

• 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?"
  

• 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."
  

• 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?
  

• 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
  

• 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.
  

• Sexual intercourse, When used as a business, A recreational party, Personal gain and instant gratification, Brings about a series of breakdowns.
  

• 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? 
  

• 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?
  

• 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.
  

• 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.
  

• 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.