Instigator / Pro
4
1352
rating
39
debates
12.82%
won
Topic

When you're ready for sex be ready to parent.

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
1
2
Conduct points
1
2

With 2 votes and 10 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
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
14
1661
rating
39
debates
79.49%
won
Description
~ 1,097 / 5,000

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.

I'm proposing a solution to birth control that includes abortion, So called unwanted pregnancy, Stds, Etc.
That is the attitude about sex. Not only to take sex seriously but realize it's design.
Just like having the right attitude about handling a firearm, Realizing it's not a toy, Not a play thing, Nor is sex.

Sex isn't play time, It's a life changing moment for a life time. Just stop and think. Inventing fail safes have not solved the problem.

There's only one way to know when the problem is solved. It's when it's solved.

For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1
Pro
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
I, Intelligence_06, will be proving that the readiness for sex does not always result in the need of readiness for parenthood.

My opponent has failed to define any term to any extent, so I shall do it for him. 

Sex:
  • Heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis
  • intercourse (such as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

I could obviously point out that months into the womb, you can already tell one’s biological sex, so you could be ready for sex before planning parenthood, and the former may be possible since less than a single year of age, according to this definition:
  • the state of being male or female
  •  the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females

However, taking the semantic route might lose me conduct in the way, so today I am going to use the first two definitions in the context of intercourse.

  1. Oral, Anal, and Homosexual intercourse
Of the valid definitions located above, it is stated that Non-penetrative intercourse still, indeed, ARE sexual intercourses. Try to prove me wrong. 

I think every person over the age of 13 would understand that parenthood requires an offspring, and biologically, through sexual intercourse, the sperms ejaculated from the male must meet the egg in the female in order to produce an offspring[1]. We need all three: The sperm, the egg, and the path(known as vagina) in order to create a child. If a man is just masturbating 5 feet away in the other direction from the woman, then no fertilization is achieved.

Since intercourses without directly having the penis in the vagina can still count, here are a few things.
  • Fellatio, Mouth on penis. Although ejaculation can happen, there is no egg in reach.
  • Cunnilingus, Mouth on vulva. No ejaculation of semen can happen in this state of sexual behavior.
  • 69, combining the two above. Still, ejaculation does not reach the egg.
  • Anal sex, Mouth or Penis in anus. There is no egg in the anus so fertilization cannot occur.

Since these four states of valid sexual intercourse indeed exist[2][3] and do not satisfy all three requirements for parenthood caused by sexual intercourse, which are the sperm, the egg, and the path, this would mean those four kinds of sexual behavior would not trigger parenthood in any way unless another position is involved.

Homosexual intercourse are as how it is being displayed: Sexual intercourse that involve two people of the same gender. Of course, either both people have the sperm or both people have the egg, so there is literally no way to create a child out of it unless another person is also there being in a different gender. And no, it exists and is quite popular among LGBTQ people[4][5]

I have proved that there are sexual intercourses other than the traditional penis-to-vagina act. Because those sexual intercourses do not result in the creation of a child, thus being ready for sex does not automatically require the demand for readiness of parenthood.

I have proved my case. Vote Con.

Sources:
  1. https://www.todaysparent.com/getting-pregnant/trying-to-conceive/how-are-babies-made/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_sexual_practices
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_sexual_practices


Round 2
Pro
"I have proved that there are sexual intercourses other than the traditional penis-to-vagina act."

Where did I say sexual intercourse doesn't have an equivocal meaning? Where did I say prove that there is only one type of sex? I think you're assuming that this debate is indirectly the same as another one that was setup or you're confusing it to be.

This debate premise is clearly within a context you should pay attention to.

"Because those sexual intercourses do not result in the creation of a child, thus being ready for sex does not automatically require the demand for readiness of parenthood."

Penile-vaginal intercourse does not always result in reproduction. One reason is because of so called fail safes. But we still have this abortion and pregnancy discussion,don't we? If the issue is solved, why continue with the politics on it?

The premise and context of this topic is around pregnancy and becoming a parent. So when you see the word sex, pay attention to your "context clues". The context is telling you the only type of sex that's on the table is the one you get pregnant from. Is it not a fact that the sex for reproduction is that of male and female sexual reproductive organs in unison?

This is ABC elementary as anything you know what the result is going to be, you have to prepare for, unless you're ignorant.

You become a police officer, be ready for danger. You become a fireman, prepare to deal with fires. You go out in the rain, prepare to get wet. You eat poorly, prepare for some health repercussions. You engage in sex, prepare to be a parent. 
Forget these weak attempts with semantic tricks, the context is clear, you know what applies based on the frame of reference.






Con
Rebuttals:
Where did I say sexual intercourse doesn't have an equivocal meaning? Where did I say prove that there is only one type of sex? I think you're assuming that this debate is indirectly the same as another one that was setup or you're confusing it to be.
It is indirectly the same as another one. I do not possess the ability that oral and anal sex is as ethical as the traditional penis-to-vagina sex, however, I can prove that they exist and they count as sexual intercourses. Check my R1 sources(PRO has brought zero so far). PRO must prove that all types of sexual intercourses lead to some kind of procreation since he has conceded that sex can exist in different states in which some would result in procreation and others wouldn't.

This debate premise is clearly within a context you should pay attention to.
I have obeyed the context of the premise because everything I had said in R1 was according to the context of the said premise. The title is: "When you're ready for sex, be ready to parent", and that would mean sex generally leads to parenthood, even if both people are male or that both people do oral sex on a regular basis while NOT doing the traditional PTV sex. 

So far, nothing has disproven any case made by me.

Penile-vaginal intercourse does not always result in reproduction. One reason is because of so called fail safes. But we still have this abortion and pregnancy discussion,don't we? If the issue is solved, why continue with the politics on it?
PRO is assuming that traditional PTV sex is the only sex eligible to be in this discussion, and if not, whatever. This does not negate the true statement that Homosexual Sex, Oral sex, and Anal sex doesn't ever result in parenthood except when something abnormal has occurred. Sucking penis regularly and correctly does NOT bring any kind of pregnancy, let alone parenthood.

I think PRO is also assuming this debate is indirectly the same as another one he has set up. Bringing abortion and bugging about traditional PTV sex does not disprove my case in any way.

The premise and context of this topic is around pregnancy and becoming a parent. So when you see the word sex, pay attention to your "context clues". The context is telling you the only type of sex that's on the table is the one you get pregnant from. Is it not a fact that the sex for reproduction is that of male and female sexual reproductive organs in unison?
PRO is moving the goalpost, or at least that is how I see it. This discourse started generally being "sex" itself, but then PRO has reduced his scope of defense to only one type of conventional sex. Don't make me pay attention to your context clue. That is not efficient. Better? Define them yourself. I do it all the time and if PRO has put "Traditional Penis-to-vagina sex" in the description explicitly, he would have won and I would have conceded.

Sadly, that is not what happens, and PRO has used an inefficient strategy. If he is going to substitute his R1 argument from the description, then he should have made it more sufficient and elaborate. Except, there is no definition AT ALL.

Forget these weak attempts with semantic tricks, the context is clear, you know what applies based on the frame of reference.
Again, PRO has put the context AFTER I have made my initial argument. I would not know what PRO is thinking. This fallacious play on sex is equivalent to saying that "If you do business, prepared to be sabotaged by the Communist governments!" "Oh, so what if I do business in a more libertarian state such as Denmark?" "You should pay attention to the context, I am only talking about business in Communist nations."

I have used no semantic tricks. I have gone according to what PRO provided me. Sex is sex, and facts don't care about your feelings. Sources say that some types of Sexual intercourses result not in parenthood and they are done worldwide and that my R1 argument remains solid and concrete. Extend everything made in R1.

Conclusion:
  • PRO has moved the goalpost
  • My R1 arguments still stand
  • If PRO defined everything needed in the description, it would be much easier for him. Sadly, that did NOT happen.
Vote CON.

Round 3
Pro
"PRO must prove that all types of sexual intercourses lead to some kind of procreation since he has conceded that sex can exist in different states in which some would result in procreation and others wouldn't."






You must PROVE THAT I SAID ALL KINDS OF SEX IS REPRODUCTIVE. YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE WORD PREGNANCY MENTIONED IN THE PREMISE DOES NOT INDICATE A SPECIFIC FORM OF SEX. ONCE YOU FAIL TO PROVE THIS, YOU WILL HAVE TO CONFESS THAT YOU'VE MADE A STRAWMAN.






"I have obeyed the context of the premise because everything I had said in R1 was according to the context of the said premise. 




"The title is: "When you're ready for sex, be ready to parent", and that would mean sex generally leads to parenthood, even if both people are male or that both people do oral sex on a regular basis while NOT doing the traditional PTV sex. 




So far, nothing has disproven any case made by me. "








My friend, is that the TITLE OR THE PREMISE? PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS THE WAY YOU APPROACH THESE DEBATES. 
Do you think you're going to get away with ignoring the description like nobody isn't going to catch that?
What do you think the description is for? It's to further explain the meaning of the title.




Also a big mistake is being made when you interpret titles like these. The title didn't say " when you're ready for ANY or ALL sex, be ready to parent. It was broad and it was followed by something that hints at the sex in mind. I think you know the only type of sex that is reproductive. You're throwing the word "all" in there for your own advantage.








It's just like if the title was " people take  public transportation", would you just presuppose that means all people? Isn't true that people take the bus ,train , etc.? On the flip side, the title of "people drive cars", it's a fact that what drives cars are people. You have to face it that broad statements or generalizations only apply to what is appropriate.




"PRO is assuming that traditional PTV sex is the only sex eligible to be in this discussion, and if not, whatever. This does not negate the true statement that Homosexual Sex, Oral sex, and Anal sex doesn't ever result in parenthood except when something abnormal has occurred. Sucking penis regularly and correctly does NOT bring any kind of pregnancy, let alone parenthood."




Nothing to do with the debate. You can accept that the premise never indicated these things or continue to be disingenuous. This has been pointed out enough at this time.


"I think PRO is also assuming this debate is indirectly the same as another one he has set up. Bringing abortion and bugging about traditional PTV sex does not disprove my case in any way."


You know since you broached the word "abortion", why does that have to stand out as an issue when according to you, this topic is about many forms of sex? There are variant ways of sexual activity, so much so, we can avoid abortion I'm sure. Abortion becomes a big issue in only one area . In only one set of circumstances. 


THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT A UNIFORMITY TO SEX. THE WHOLE POINT IN THIS HAS TO DO WITH HAVING THE RIGHT ATTITUDE TOWARDS SEX THAT WILL RESULT IN PARENTHOOD. ACCEPTING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO BE PREPARED FOR LIFE CHANGING RESULTS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ARGUING FOR SEX BEING DESIGNED TO REPRODUCE LIFE. WE'RE PAST THAT CHAPTER AS WE'RE LOOKING AT SITUATIONS OF UNWANTED PREGNANCY AND POOR CHOICES MADE INVOLVED IN THE MATTER. 


You have to rid this misunderstanding you have about this whole exchange. Really make an effort to pay attention to what somebody is saying and quit the presupposition.


I think I made these points before. If you're going to teach, prepare to be asked questions by the student. When you're job is being a stunt double, prepare for injury, possibly accept fatality. This is true and it works the same way with THE SEX YOU ENGAGE IN THAT CAN/WILL LEAD TO PARENTHOOD. 


"PRO is moving the goalpost, or at least that is how I see it. This discourse started generally being "sex" itself, but then PRO has reduced his scope of defense to only one type of conventional sex. Don't make me pay attention to your context clue. That is not efficient. Better? Define them yourself. I do it all the time and if PRO has put "Traditional Penis-to-vagina sex" in the description explicitly, he would have won and I would have conceded."




Forget about how you see it. Prove that the premise didn't indicate abortion and pregnancy. What other forms of sex are relevant to these things?


This is why I stated, if you don't understand something or need clarity, ask. You ran with what you thought, glossed over the premise and now you're dictating to what the premise should say to fit you. Either way, you just find some other angle,a play on WORDS somewhere to try to avoid invalidation.


So my friend, if you didn't know this before, you can use a  broad term in a specific context or just use a specific term. This is how we communicate and socialize with one another in an everyday basis. Somehow it just doesn't translate to you well if at all on this platform.




"Again, PRO has put the context AFTER I have made my initial argument."




Entirely false but hey, if you just didn't interpret the description correctly, just say so.




"I would not know what PRO is thinking. This fallacious play on sex is equivalent to saying that "If you do business, prepared to be sabotaged by the Communist governments!" "Oh, so what if I do business in a more libertarian state such as Denmark?" "You should pay attention to the context, I am only talking about business in Communist nations.""


By your own example, because it's so broad, you can say prepare for anything and it wouldn't be incorrect. Why? One part of it is just as broad as the other. So it's consistent and valid , therefore logical.


"I have used no semantic tricks. I have gone according to what PRO provided me. Sex is sex, and facts don't care about your feelings."


Prove where I said that. This is another thing, show where you are getting these quotes from, please.


"Sources  say that some types of Sexual intercourses result not in parenthood and they are done worldwide and that my R1 argument remains solid and concrete. Extend everything made in R1. "


I'm one of those sources as I've made the statement about penile- vaginal intercourse which you can go back and read.
Doesn't change the context in the premise laid out.




"Conclusion:
PRO has moved the goalpost
My R1 arguments still stand
If PRO defined everything needed in the description, it would be much easier for him. Sadly, that did NOT happen.         "
I am actually not a tape recorder. I've made myself clear. At this point, you can either accept and concede or just be done period. From this period moving forward we'll be on a merry-go-round.


When you're a police officer, not all situations will be dangerous but when somebody says be careful, the inference is from those situations that apply.


When you're ready for sex, be ready to parent. The inference is being made here. So it's needless to come back and question , well what type of sex do you mean?


Are you going to ask that when somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"


Will you agree that being prepared to participate in sex is to be prepared to become a parent ?


Will you also agree that sex that can/will lead to being a parent is the sex that is that, such as in the premise?



























Con
Rebuttals:

You must PROVE THAT I SAID ALL KINDS OF SEX IS REPRODUCTIVE. YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE WORD PREGNANCY MENTIONED IN THE PREMISE DOES NOT INDICATE A SPECIFIC FORM OF SEX. ONCE YOU FAIL TO PROVE THIS, YOU WILL HAVE TO CONFESS THAT YOU'VE MADE A STRAWMAN.
I cannot prove that you said all kinds of sex are reproductive because, in reality, only one kind of sexual intercourse is. Saying that only the traditional PTV sex satisfies the criteria is like saying only business in communist countries satisfy the criteria for the premise "If you do business, you are more likely than unlikely to be sabotaged by the communist government." PRO has not even specified that only the traditional PTV sex matches the criteria, in fact, only stated that the traditional PTV sex leads to unwanted pregnancy, but used NO space for definitions. As the instigator, PRO must define all the terms and razor the ambiguous exploitations out of the question. However, PRO has not defined nor razored unwanted definitions. He merely blamed me and moved the goalpost after I made an actual point. PRO merely implied that traditional PTV sex brings unwanted pregnancy and should not be done for fun, but he has not defined sex nor has he razored Oral, anal and homosexual sex off the issue. PRO has stabbed his own foot because he has wasted about 2 rounds arguing why the traditional PTV sex is the only one valid when he did not specify them until I have made my own point which is valid.

Let me restate the description and the premise.
When you're ready for sex be ready to parent.
There is no hint of the traditional PTV sex.

I'm proposing a solution to birth control that includes abortion, So called unwanted pregnancy, Stds, Etc.
That is the attitude about sex. Not only to take sex seriously but realize it's design.
Just like having the right attitude about handling a firearm, Realizing it's not a toy, Not a play thing, Nor is sex.
This only limits how traditional PTV sex should be used, but it says naught about why it is the only valid resolution here.

Sex isn't play time, It's a life changing moment for a life time. Just stop and think. Inventing fail safes have not solved the problem.
There's only one way to know when the problem is solved. It's when it's solved.
See above. Also noted: Using a falsifiable solution to justify a falsifiable claim does not make either of them valid. I have illustrated upon 4 occasions that sex is indeed just playtime and causes no pregnancy and consequences of its likes, and that could mean one thing: I have proven my opponent's resolution wrong according to his (a lack of) definitions, not at all that all four occasions should be razored off the resolution. Again, repeat: PRO has not defined any term to any extent, and since I have defined it in R1, I have the upper hand. Pro's flaw in the plan does not make him obviously correct: It is quite the opposite. He defined it only after me(The description is no definition, implication at most, see above) and his contradict with me. I see every reason how my definition in this context grants me the upper ground.

My friend, is that the TITLE OR THE PREMISE? PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME THIS IS THE WAY YOU APPROACH THESE DEBATES. 
Do you think you're going to get away with ignoring the description like nobody isn't going to catch that?
What do you think the description is for? It's to further explain the meaning of the title.
The descriptions contain no definitions, and it does not razor off my <valid> types of intercourse. It is quite a failure, especially since PRO waived R1. I did not ignore the description, I just walked around it fair and square. The description said only that PTV sex shouldn't be treated as sex play, but it didn't say about any other type of sex at all.

Also a big mistake is being made when you interpret titles like these. The title didn't say " when you're ready for ANY or ALL sex, be ready to parent. It was broad and it was followed by something that hints at the sex in mind. I think you know the only type of sex that is reproductive. You're throwing the word "all" in there for your own advantage.
It is moving the goalpost. I have proven why the description does not define nor razor, and PRO has changed definition midway through the debate. From now, I shall stop refuting such statements unless something else is meant to be said.

It's just like if the title was " people take  public transportation", would you just presuppose that means all people? Isn't true that people take the bus ,train , etc.? On the flip side, the title of "people drive cars", it's a fact that what drives cars are people. You have to face it that broad statements or generalizations only apply to what is appropriate.
I indeed have something else to say. When there is no limitation other than "People", all people count, because there is no limitation on what those people could be as long as they are indeed still people. PRO has no limitations defined for "Sex", and all forms of sex should count as long as they are defined as "sex". My Merriam Webster dictionary is much more reliable than your contexts. Eating a burger does not count as sex whereas sticking penis in anus count according to the very definition.

I am skipping half of the entire argument because they are talking about the same thing at different times, and they are all in support of his move of the goalpost.

PRO is attacking me instead of having any proof of why even PTV sex should be, in all cases, a sign to be ready for parenthood.

Conclusions:
  • PRO has typed a massive amount of text to show why he has moved the goalpost.
  • PRO's description does not define what sex is nor it razors off inappropriate definitions. He has changed definitions midway.
  • Oral, Anal, and Homosexual sex, no matter what, are still sex and still do not bring pregnancy of any kind.
  • I extend all arguments because none are disproven by the slightest. The best attempt still moved the goalpost indeed.


Vote CON!
Round 4
Pro
"You must PROVE THAT I SAID ALL KINDS OF SEX IS REPRODUCTIVE. YOU MUST PROVE THAT THE WORD PREGNANCY MENTIONED IN THE PREMISE DOES NOT INDICATE A SPECIFIC FORM OF SEX. ONCE YOU FAIL TO PROVE THIS, YOU WILL HAVE TO CONFESS THAT YOU'VE MADE A STRAWMAN.
I cannot prove that you said all kinds of sex are reproductive because, in reality, only one kind of sexual intercourse is. "


Well now, then don't move the goalpost, destroy that STRAWMAN you made.


"Let me restate the description and the premise.
When you're ready for sex be ready to parent.


There is no hint of the traditional PTV sex."

My friend, THIS IS THE TITLE. THE DESCRIPTION  AND PREMISE ARE DESCRIBEDDDDDD......WHERE IT SAYS DESCRIPTION.THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE FOR THIS SITE GIVING A SEPARATE FIELD FOR THE DESCRIPTION.


THIS IS JUST INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OR PLAIN IGNORANCE.


ALSO THE HINT OR CONTEXT CLUE IS "PARENT" .

WHY WOULD THAT STATEMENT MEAN BE READY FOR ALL OR MANY FORMS OF SEX WHEN THE CONTEXT RELATES TO PARENTHOOD?

YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER WITH THIS SEMANTICS TACTIC.


"This only limits how traditional PTV sex should be used, but it says naught about why it is the only valid resolution here."

Let me explain what you missed. When you take sex seriously, realizing the ramification or result of it based on what it is, it solidifies what's considerably a cliche. You can put this along with many of the other adages you should've been taught.That is taking responsibility for your action.

To be prepared for RESPONSIBILITY, you will have to be prepared for what entails of that duty or responsibility.


"See above. Also noted: Using a falsifiable solution to justify a falsifiable claim does not make either of them valid. I have illustrated upon 4 occasions that sex is indeed just playtime and causes no pregnancy and consequences of its likes, "

What kind of SEX? 

Not the type that causes one to be a parent that should be taken seriously because PARENTHOOD is a serious thing.

That's what the debate is about. Unless you can prove parenthood is not a serious thing, put up or shut up.


"The descriptions contain no definitions, and it does not razor off my <valid> types of intercourse. It is quite a failure, especially since PRO waived R1. I did not ignore the description, I just walked around it fair and square. The description said only that PTV sex shouldn't be treated as sex play, but it didn't say about any other type of sex at all."

Right, the description contains context. Now you either want to be consistent with it or you don't.

There is no walking around it justifiably. You have to walk with it. You don't go around the law , you have to be in accordance with the law. If you're not within the law, it's not legal. You think you found a loophole but it still has to be in context in order for it to hold up.

When the description doesn't say anything other than the sex it says, don't present anything else as you did in round 1.

Your story is changing. Not consistent but it's expected.

"It is moving the goalpost. I have proven why the description does not define nor razor, and PRO has changed definition midway through the debate. From now, I shall stop refuting such statements unless something else is meant to be said."

Admit that you threw the words "all sex" in the title or distorted it.

It is moving the GOALPOST. You put it back where I had it, hands off.


"I indeed have something else to say. When there is no limitation other than "People", all people count, because there is no limitation on what those people could be as long as they are indeed still people. PRO has no limitations defined for "Sex", and all forms of sex should count as long as they are defined as "sex". My Merriam Webster dictionary is much more reliable than your contexts. Eating a burger does not count as sex whereas sticking penis in anus count according to the very definition."

Everything IS IN CONTEXT. Let me tell you, after this, you won't be able to get this word out of your head.

Is it true that PEOPLE ride the bus? Yes, is it ALL PEOPLE?  IT DOES NOT MEAN ALLLL.

It is true that persons, people (plural) are on that bus going downtown. There are PEOPLE that live in that building.Not NECESSARILY YOU AND I.

PEOPLE HAVE SEX. NOT NECESSARILY YOU AND I . EVEN IF IT IS JUST ME, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL KINDS OF SEX.

IT DOESN'T TAKE ME ENGAGING IN ALL KINDS TO MAKE THE STATEMENT TRUE. THEREFORE IT'S NOT DEFINED BY ALL VERBATIM OR EXACTLY.

With broad terms and statements, you can assume whatever and be incorrect in your assumption.

What would you say if I told you my name is Merriam Webster, I put the dictionary together?

It may not mean much to you and it shouldn't , I'm just a person.

Like I've called it already, this is going in circles. I continue to emphasize context but somehow you've assumed the word "sex" to be "all sex" . The matter of circumstance is not specified until you get to the word " parent" in the title. But you distort it all up starting off with an incorrect foundation using a preconceived idea from the beginning of the title. Then you carry this idea all throughout the description so it becomes futile. Started off on the wrong track  and you've been off it ever since.

Now if you feel attacked , that sucks. I understand the Truth can be that way.

Now it appears you didn't refute my point about being asked of impregnating
somebody.

Now please attempt to refute or concede it's irrefutable.


When somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"

Are you going to ask, "Well, what type of sex?"

It has nothing to do with a question of all or any kind of sex but one, isn't so? Is this making it plain?

This is true unless you just don't know any better.

Con
PRO=Mall=Readiness for sex should always be equal to readiness for parenthood
CON=Intelligence_06=PRO's proof is insufficient within the case

R#=Round #
A#=Argument #
Re#=Rebuttal #

Re1: Two wrongs do not make it right

Again, my opponent's descriptions are flawed from the start, and putting specifications would help. My opponent is imagining as if traditional PTV sex is the only valid sex. My opponent has confirmed that there is more than one type of sex as early as early R2, so it would mean that non-reproductive sex exists and they are invented not to produce kids.

Restate the description.
I'm proposing a solution to birth control that includes abortion, So called unwanted pregnancy, Stds, Etc.
That is the attitude about sex. Not only to take sex seriously but realize it's design.
Just like having the right attitude about handling a firearm, Realizing it's not a toy, Not a play thing, Nor is sex.
Sex isn't play time, It's a life changing moment for a life time. Just stop and think. Inventing fail safes have not solved the problem.
Line 1: No information useful here.
Line 2: As much as sex is a design, sex brings pleasure. Pleasure exists and billions of people in their lifetime use them for pleasure only until they are ready for parenthood. I restate that of those 4 occasions I have stated in the first round, none of them are life-productive. Sex is far from a uniform design as if so, sex would be used for full duty that cannot be defined or done any way else. The existence of oral and anal sex disprove the claim that suggests sex is a uniform design, and unless "sex" specifically refers to traditional PTV sex, which my opponent has made zero effort defining it anyways, it is a false claim and a false claim remains false in front of definitions, regardless of context because "Sports will make you die" is a false claim: It, if done correctly, will actually boost your health. Contexting that "sports" means those dangerous ones such as extreme parkour and climbing Everest would be enough of a stretch long enough to traverse the runway at O'hare, Chicago. Wrong is wrong. Wrong does not mean correct in context, especially since my opponent defined AFTER me and only implied too slight to be considered. My opponent has moved the goalpost and changed definitions midway.
Line 3: Sex sometimes is playtime. Anal and Oral have no other purpose other than pleasure or personal fulfillment. Sex is not mundane work and never was. It already intrinsically bring pleasure. Again, eating a girl's butt is a plaything as it brings pleasure and not babies.
Line 4: See above. Sex sometimes is playtime, especially in some forms where it cannot bring babies to this world but brings sexual pleasures nonetheless. Sources in R1 as they still stand like Stonehenge.

I have proved that PRO has not defined anything in the descriptions and based on my authentic definitions from MW, his claims are mere bollocks in front of my authentic definitions. PRO has listed absolutely no sources for anything ever in this debate. "Implications" on false claims are mere nonsense as PRO can obviously put clearer words down, define and razor what "sex" is, instead of putting something that is hard to see and are open to exploitations. I, as CON, didn't ever see that such implications exist anywhere until my opponent has openly mentioned it. That is just how unclear his signals were.

Re2: Sex vs "all sex"

Sex has no limitations, and as a result, when "sex" is mentioned any kind of sex can happen. There is a difference between "any" and "every", although every form can be referred to within both of the words. "all" functions like "every", and both "all" and "every" means that the whole quantity is included regardless, while "any" means one or some of the quantity, no matter the quantity itself. 

Let's imagine using this, and the big circle represents the boundary between sex and non-sex. Putting a penis in the vagina would be inside the circle while driving a car to the construction site is outside the big circle. Everything inside the big circle, blue or yellow, would be considered "all". Yellow inside is one combination of "any". You see, "any" is inside "all", and while "all" includes everything, "any" includes part of it, as long as it is not null(0).

When there are no modifiers, "I did sex" means "any kind of sex could have been done by me", not all. I do not need to perform all positions there are for me to say "I did sex", only one is needed for "I did sex" as it is "any" not "all". The one or more needed for "I did sex" might not even include PTV sex as there are at least two general categories for oral sex already and I could have only did oral sex while still eligible for "I did sex" to be true.

So yes, "Sex" does not mean "all sex" but "any sex", so any combination, including ones without PTV, would count.

Conclusions:
  • PRO still moved the goalpost and failed to define nor razor. Contexts do not make the description correct as he could certainly use better wordings.
  • According to my authentic definition, anal and oral counts as sex. They could be done and they are playtime and they require no readiness for parenthood.
  • "Sex" means "any sex" when there is a lack of modifiers, and it is not equivalent to "all". If I did oral only, I technically still did "sex", and because it is just playtime and brings no child to life for any reason, only doing that would prove PRO false as no readiness towards parenthood is needed.
  • My R1 arguments still stand like Stonehenge and remain unaltered.

Round 5
Pro
This ring around the rosie ride on the carousel is over.
What's the point of repeating the same points to where I refuted them successfully?

We're going to bring this thing to a close on your issues with the semantics. You just interpret words different. For the future, ask what each word means when I say it.

I'm repeating nothing else but this one point. I didn't see a clear , short answer for it so here it goes.


"Now please attempt to refute or concede it's irrefutable.


When somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"

Are you going to ask, "Well, what type of sex?"

It has nothing to do with a question of all or any kind of sex but one, isn't so? Is this making it plain?

This is true unless you just don't know any better."

Once more, here we go:

"Now please attempt to refute or concede it's irrefutable.


When somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"

Are you going to ask, "Well, what type of sex?"

It has nothing to do with a question of all or any kind of sex but one, isn't so? Is this making it plain?

This is true unless you just don't know any better."

Hey just one more for the road,


"Now please attempt to refute or concede it's irrefutable.


When somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"

Are you going to ask, "Well, what type of sex?"

It has nothing to do with a question of all or any kind of sex but one, isn't so? Is this making it plain?

This is true unless you just don't know any better."


This demonstrates how a word works under context. Now with the question in quotations, introduced after where it says "When somebody asks you", if you're answer is "yes" in that scenario, it's a true statement to say "Be ready to parent." , obviously.
Judging that you don't abandon your responsibilities.

That's all this debate has entailed. Right in that scenario right there pal.







Con
Yes, we definitely are going full circles.

Rebuttals:

What's the point of repeating the same points to where I refuted them successfully?
That is my line. I have proved that a wrong definition does not mean contexts. If the "business" in "If you do business you will be behind bars" specifically refers to illegal schemes, then my opponent is correct. My opponent did not define what "sex" is nor razored it. He just implied so slightly that I didn't even catch it. My opponent can just refer to traditional PTV sex, but instead, he did not and pushed the fault on me, which I find very absurd. I don't know how to understand anything unless YOU put it clear. YOU did not. YOU are thinking how clear your implications are but if you can use weak implications that I didn't even think exist, why not use the definition or define what "sex" is? My opponent's definition of sex is basically incorrect and that does not mean a specific context.


When somebody asks you "Being that you had sex with her, did you get her pregnant?"

Are you going to ask, "Well, what type of sex?"
No. I will not ask anything. The only possible responses I could have are:
  1. Yes. 
  2. No.
I know damn well what kind of sex I would have done and if I didn't even put my penis into her vagina(while still keeping the activity as sex, such as anal) I would not have gotten her pregnant. This argument is weak as it destroys none of my arguments. The only real case that my opponent will prove his BoP is that if he negates oral, anal, and overall homosexual sex as sex, which is impossible since definition provides that they are in fact sex and people use them as sex. Given that he concedes that those 3 cases of sex do not bring parenthood, that is his only escape, and alas, he DID NOT do that.

It has nothing to do with a question of all or any kind of sex but one, isn't so? Is this making it plain?

This is true unless you just don't know any better."
Since the scenario provided above does not hint traditional PTV sex, I find these statements worth naught. Said statements are true if the ones above are true, and the ones above are being disproven by me.

This demonstrates how a word works under context. Now with the question in quotations, introduced after where it says "When somebody asks you", if you're answer is "yes" in that scenario, it's a true statement to say "Be ready to parent." , obviously.
Judging that you don't abandon your responsibilities.
My answer there could be NO. Anal and Oral will lead to a NO response consider there is literally no way you could get someone pregnant eating her butthole. Since definitions ruled out that they are indeed sex but does not grant parenthood, it means after sex it could be that no children are created. Unless my opponent proved that all sexual activities must include ones that will get one person pregnant, which he did not, he did not prove what he is supposed to prove.

That's all this debate has entailed. Right in that scenario right there pal.
As much as that is a desperate attempt, it did nothing to my points.

Conclusions
  1. I have proved that there are forms of sex that do not lead directly to parenthood, such as oral, anal, homosexual, etc. My opponent has conceded that they are in fact forms of sex.
  2. My opponent has changed the definition and moved the goalpost midway without scratching an inch on my argument. He did not define nor razor definitions in the description section, and now he is relying on that for his main spine of the argument.
  3. As a result, my arguments stand, and voters, please vote for PRO!