Instigator / Pro
4
1401
rating
29
debates
17.24%
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
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1672
rating
283
debates
66.96%
won
Description
~ 1,473 / 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
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
So to continue on, the design of coitus is of uniformity due to  the function never changing, always working the same way every time.


I understand people make look at other things involved that can vary, that's why the context is specific here under the set of circumstances that have been laid out.


The result is always the reproduction of life according to the design of sexual organs. So therefore is a uniform intent there in and of their makeup. Now there are factors that can derail the function . What can disrupt fertilization doesn't change what the design is. The design has been established to do a specific thing. A tire will do nothing but roll. That makes it functional. Even if it goes flat, we know that's dysfunctional as it's not in accordance with its design. With no disruptions, it's use continues on exactly as to what it was made for within that use.




All the features in sexual organs like everything else show the direction of duty when we observe conception. See we can continue to observe from one element or multiple elements to the next.


With this self evident anatomical physiological communication, we can see how the topic statement is true.


Do people have their own intent when engaging in sexual intercourse? Indeed, like many other things. Like using a tire for a planter. Like attempting to use an armrest for a seat. 




The point is, separate the fundamental focus from your own plot of difference.





















Con
I am going to copy-paste my arguments from the identical debate topic vs the same opponent on this. I'll evolve this differently though, depending what he brings up.
DISCLAIMER 
=============
This is obviously an adult/mature debate don't read it if you don't know about sex or shouldn't be discussing it online.

=============



How do you explain that each penis is unique, each sperm cell unique and each vagina and egg the same?

What about foreplay? Do dildos count?

Where is your evidence that it's even designed?

So because it involves a penis entering a vagina each and every time, it therefore is uniform? That is most ridiculous to suggest.

Also, how do you explain different sex positions? How about kinks?


uniform
adjective
the same; not changing or different in any way

design noun (PLAN)
C1 
a drawing or set of drawings showing how a building or product is to be made and how it will work and look:
B1 

(also designing)
the art of making plans or drawings for something:
B1
the way in which something is planned and made

I have seen several admissions by Pro that there is a lot of non-uniform variation in sexual intercourse surrounding its build-up, the precise tool size and interaction based on lubrication and such.

What I have failed to see is any sign whatsoever of design.

It's also curious why Pro rules out a dildo as being a valid tool to engage in the intercourse with, since a condom-covered dick has just as little skin-on-skin during the intercourse. This implies that Pro himself sees there to be something unique and special about sexual intercourse between two humans specifically (rather than a simulation with a toy) and what makes it special is actually the variation in foreplay, tempo during and the aftermath.

I conclude also that there is no designer or 'design'. Pro has not proven God to exist throughout this debate and when asked what designed it or what specifically the design is, Pro asks us to assume it automatically was designed purely because it has a pattern of intercourse... Doesn't seem like a met burden of proof to me.
Round 3
Pro
"I have seen several admissions by Pro that there is a lot of non-uniform variation in sexual intercourse surrounding its build-up, the precise tool size and interaction based on lubrication and such. "


Several admissions such as what ?


What other form of penile-vaginal penetration is there? Each person has only ONE sexual organ. The female has one orifice to her organ. Excluding outlier cases of deformity, anyhow the context deals with life reproduction.  How is reproducing anything else than what reproducing is? When is there ever any change in that? It appears that the focus is not centralized here.


I can use a variety of screwdrivers and sizes of screws. I can use a cheap or expensive screwdriver. But the design of the screwdriver is constant in order to function as constant. The screwdriver in its use will always drive a screw into the surface. When it doesn't , it's called malfunction.


"What I have failed to see is any sign whatsoever of design."


What is design? It is structure, shape, form, an arrangement of sorts. It's whatever it is when you see something like your screen here. It's as straightforward as that.


"It's also curious why Pro rules out a dildo as being a valid tool to engage in the intercourse with, since a condom-covered dick has just as little skin-on-skin during the intercourse."


We have to keep in mind without exception, the reproduction of life. I know it can get tricky going in depth into these things. So to keep focus at the epicenter, under what set of circumstances are we talking about?


Those things you mentioned don't relate do they?


"This implies that Pro himself sees there to be something unique and special about sexual intercourse between two humans specifically (rather than a simulation with a toy) and what makes it special is actually the variation in foreplay, tempo during and the aftermath."


Are we talking about sex or what's leading up to it? You have to get down to the bottom line. Please distinguish between sexual intercouse and sexual activity so the focus of what something is will be very clear. Once more again, these subjects can get convoluted when focus is lost.


"I conclude also that there is no designer or 'design'. Pro has not proven God to exist throughout this debate and when asked what designed it or what specifically the design is, Pro asks us to assume it automatically was designed purely because it has a pattern of intercourse... Doesn't seem like a met burden of proof to me."


Hopefully by now you understand what is meant by design. This is not an exchange about a DESIGNER, it's about the DESIGN. So this doesn't go into the territory of trying to prove who or what the designer is so I won't hold you to that.


The DESIGNER could be evolution or we have a design that always was. That's not the question.
The question is,  is sexual intercourse ever any act different from what it is to reproduce something and that something being any other thing but that something?



How do you explain that each penis is unique, each sperm cell unique and each vagina and egg the same?"

I explain it by unique genetic makeup. Likened to unique eye color, skin color, nose size, foot size, etc.


"What about foreplay? Do dildos count?"


What about it? What does it have to do with coitus (sexual intercourse)?


"Where is your evidence that it's even designed?"

Design means structure or formation. So whatever we see or look at is physically evident that it's configured. It's made up of what? Features and elements that allow a function in that design. Which in turn carries out a duty or result. It's by the result according to the structure that communicates the purpose and intent.

Once you look up these terms: design, function, structure and learn a lot of the synonymous language, you can begin to build an understanding of these things.


"So because it involves a penis entering a vagina each and every time, it therefore is uniform? That is most ridiculous to suggest."

What is uniform? It's pretty much standard procedure. A non-deviating one at that. Something that is constantly what it is each and every time. You tell me when SEXUAL intercourse is sometimes something other than what it is.
I'm not suggesting it's uniform just like eating vegetables for nutrition has no need for suggesting or proposing it's a uniform operation. This is an occurrence always within these things.

I'm also not proposing that the sexual organs have a function. Why? It's evident and it's innate. If you're saying these organs don't have a function, this is where you make your case. Do you know what I mean ?


"Also, how do you explain different sex positions? How about kinks?"

I don't get your rationale. Every sex position WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE as described in the premise, has sexual intercourse.
I don't know what you mean by "kinks" exactly. But let's put it this way being that all these questions don't appear to have any follow up and that is simply put , anything that leads or ends up in sexual INTERCOURSE is SEXUAL intercourse.

Again, when is sexual INTERCOURSE not what it is? Just keep that in mind , what the end result is. We can have multiple scenarios and elements involved. Once we get to the destination of coitus, it's function is constant. There's a reason to that. There's a reason all these different things happen in and around this act. Some how all these things as we can see lead us to that act.


THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ITSELF, NOT SEXUAL ORGANS, FANTASIES, ETC



Con
Homophobic definition of Sexual Intercourse

To begin with, I'd like to ask how on Earth Pro suggests that homosexual people lose their virginity.

Even if we are told to irrationally rule out lesbians using strapons and such toys, surely gay men undeniably have intercourse, just not with a vagina.

Spectrum of activity
Gay men—Anal sex remains a taboo subject even for many professional sexual discussions; however, it is widely practised in most communities. Sexual activity is protean in all groups, and gay men are no different in this. Mutual masturbation, oral sex, and anal sex can be considered core activities, although many gay men do not practise anal sex at all.

Lesbians—Mutual masturbation, oral sex, caressing, and penetration with fingers or sex toys can be considered as core activities. Some couples may choose more vigorous forms of penetration such as “fisting,” in which the hand and part of the forearm is introduced into the vagina, though this is probably no more common than in heterosexual couples.

The issue with Pro's definition of intercourse is twofold:

  1. It is homophobic and completely ignorant of so many elements surrounding intercourse that indeed make it vary.
  2. It is conceding this entire debate because it includes situations where contraceptives prevent the pregnancy aspect, condoms even prevent the STD/STI transfer to a significant degree meaning it's even different on a level of biohazard threat.
Pro's definition of intercourse would have us believe that each and every sexual encounter that involves intercourse is somehow identical at the point of intercourse but this is not at all the case. Pro has conceded that so many different elements of sexual foreplay, sizing of tools, lubrication and aftercare mean that sexual intercourse itself doesn't even have a uniform design surrounding it structurally let alone in and of itself since each thing varies couple-to-couple...

Actually that leads me onto the idea of double penetration with one woman and two or more men. What exactly is Pro going to define that as? Uniform?

That can't possibly be uniform design.

Round 4
Pro
"To begin with, I'd like to ask how on Earth Pro suggests that homosexual people lose their virginity."

So because this is irrelevant to the debate, it has no place to make suggestions to or about. The debate is in regards to male and female sexual intercourse. Absolutely no disrespect here but that's what it is.


"Even if we are told to irrationally rule out lesbians using strapons and such toys, surely gay men undeniably have intercourse, just not with a vagina."

Right that's just not in the context of the debate description. We do have to stick with that.

Please, for the next round ,drop everything that doesn't relate to male and female coitus.

No responses will be made here to irrelevant topics.

"The issue with Pro's definition of intercourse is twofold:

It is homophobic and completely ignorant of so many elements surrounding intercourse that indeed make it vary."

I had suspicion that you were leading to this.

Making an exclusive exchange about a topic, I don't have right to do so and therefore you play this card. Just because I may talk about certain lives mattering, therefore I'm bias or perhaps have bigoted tendencies. This is the logic I'm getting but I digress .

Look, this topic is on a specific situation excluding everything else which doesn't mean a negative intent.

I'm going to have to call it right here in that this is a red herring.

Bringing all these inappropriate things so to not get back to the question in which you have to concede the truth to just won't fly.

Is the design or process, maybe you like the word "process" better, it may be more comfortable to you but is it always the same for reproduction of life?

The process of the male sexual organ inserting into the female sexual organ is always what it is to achieve conception, is it not?


By the way, if I get no "yes or no "to that,it automatically indicates conceding it is a true statement.

" It is conceding this entire debate because it includes situations where contraceptives prevent the pregnancy aspect, condoms even prevent the STD/STI transfer to a significant degree meaning it's even different on a level of biohazard threat."

This was already covered in the description where it begins to state "in spite of".

So this means the function is still what it is regardless of external operations. Those that participate in coitus would be grateful of this as to stop the function would truly mean no gratification in the act.

"Pro's definition of intercourse would have us believe that each and every sexual encounter that involves intercourse is somehow identical at the point of intercourse but this is not at all the case. Pro has conceded that so many different elements of sexual foreplay, sizing of tools, lubrication and aftercare mean that sexual intercourse itself doesn't even have a uniform design surrounding it structurally let alone in and of itself since each thing varies couple-to-couple..."

PLEASE PROVE WHERE ALL THIS WAS SAID IN THE DESCRIPTION.

NOT SURROUNDING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BUT WITHIN IT.

Maybe your mind is in a box . You must find some way to take it out.

The focus is on sexual intercourse itself. Not all the SEXUAL ACTIVITY that you could ever imagine from fifty shades and beyond, but the act of penetration, that single act of itself.

It should be clear by now what is meant by sexual intercourse. The terms will probably linger with you long after this is over.


"Actually that leads me onto the idea of double penetration with one woman and two or more men. What exactly is Pro going to define that as? Uniform?

That can't possibly be uniform design."

See I can take a topic of discussion, add inappropriate things to it to make my points stick. But where is the bottom line? All purposes are defeated with behaving in such haphazardly, diggledly-piggledly, slapdash manners. We must stay in order which is the system of using a detailed description.

Now I won't define or argue what you're saying to be uniform as the description laid out never defined, indicated and or argued that.

You're conflating a host of components and ideas when I had only one idea in mind. This angle of deflection, broaching other things that have variation will get no argument from me.

Can I get an argument from you that refutes the point of uniformity only in coitus like there is in eating?

Con
  • Pro fails to explain who the designer or designers even are, let alone proving they exist.
  • The designs are somehow said to be self-evidently true despite no drawn or even written design of sex being displayed. It seems to be an undesigned thing that accidentally has similarities.
  • All differences and variation surrounding and included in sexual intercourse, be it the tools, the tempo and anything of that kind are deemed to be irrelevant differences by Pro, displaying severely fallacious confirmation bias to obsessively support a uniformity in design that clearly doesn't maintain itself.
  • Contraception and homosexual sex completely dismantle Pro's case for sex having a uniform end-goal of pregnancy, as opposed to orgasmic pleasure. In fact, Pro would undoubtely concede that Prostitution has money as a goal and not orgasm as a goal for one or more of the parties so...
All I can say is that Pro is trying desperately to escape what is an irrefutable defeat. Every single non-uniform aspect of sex I have mentioned is said to be irrelevant by Pro and everything about the design is made up by Pro, with no 'design' drawings and writings shown to us.

Round 5
Pro
"Pro fails to explain who the designer or designers even are, let alone proving they exist."

How many times am I going to have to say through out these debates, this is not about a designer? The debate is about DESIGNNNNN. 

Design is something that we can see and that is here . Can you prove otherwise?

The problem with you is keeping focus on what we're talking.

What is it that you're not understanding about what a design is?

It's a physical thing, makes no difference if the designer was nothing. It is what's here now that can be observed.

No more with this point please.


"The designs are somehow said to be self-evidently true despite no drawn or even written design of sex being displayed. It seems to be an undesigned thing that accidentally has similarities."

When you look at a sexual organ, what do you see? When you see it doing some sort of a function, what is the result ?

Tell what you see when this organ operates with other organs?

These are questions you have to be willing to go through if you truly desire to learn anything. But if you been programmed, brainwashed to not have your own mind, to not think for yourself, to not observe but to just be told things, you have no account for what truth is.


"All differences and variation surrounding and included in sexual intercourse, be it the tools, the tempo and anything of that kind are deemed to be irrelevant differences by Pro, displaying severely fallacious confirmation bias to obsessively support a uniformity in design that clearly doesn't maintain itself."

Which one do you wish to debate on, "all differences and variation surrounding and included in sexual intercourse" or just "sexual intercourse"?

"Contraception and homosexual sex completely dismantle Pro's case for sex having a uniform end-goal of pregnancy, as opposed to orgasmic pleasure. In fact, Pro would undoubtely concede that Prostitution has money as a goal and not orgasm as a goal for one or more of the parties so..."

Does any of this have to do with the reproduction of life?

It appears that it is extremely hard for you to keep focused.

This is why the context of the description is laid out the way it is. It's so that we're not running all over the place. When you don't have a foundation, you get lost, confused and find it too difficult to ascertain facts.

"All I can say is that Pro is trying desperately to escape what is an irrefutable defeat. Every single non-uniform aspect of sex I have mentioned is said to be irrelevant by Pro and everything about the design is made up by Pro, with no 'design' drawings and writings shown to us."


When you say "sex" here, what do you mean?

See, get precise and focused here. The problem is a lack of focus and conflating everything.
I can point out things that are irrelevant based on the context of this debate. The description is specific enough for me to do so. You won't acknowledge the description as is so you continue to just repeat these refuted points of yours. Just concede instead of pretending as though they work.

The "writings" and "drawings" as it were are right before your eyes . Unless you reject your own eyes, you can observe what a stove does, what a tire does, a pencil, a knife does, etc. to learn about its design or structure. 

All we're learning is what we see with our eyes. The physical shape, whatever it is, we're learning of its makeup, its composition and so on.

This appears to be proof that many of us have  been pushed to put the fundamentals aside when it comes to viewing what people do I guess because it's personal choice. That's a topic for another time possibly.

Once again, the focus is not kept where it should be at. That's what they call " moving the goalpost".

Con
Moving the goalpost is precisely what Pro is doing. For instance, the very fact that penetration can occur with other objects than a single penis (such as an additional penis for double penetration) means even the core 'design' is not uniform.

The entire concept of homosexual intercourse is completely ignored by Pro and I don't even fathom how he's addressed it. Sexual intercourse is not solely about a penis filling a vagina in order to inseminate the egg that produces a zygote in a womb. This is not the uniform design behind it, evident from examples where the objective and entire process surrounding the intercourse imply that a pleasurable orgasm is the aim or in the case of prostitution where money is the aim for one party.

On top of this, it is extremely vague what Pro means by 'design'. I am the only one in this debate who gave a definition of it and I see no designs brought forth as evidence.