Instigator / Pro
0
1469
rating
347
debates
41.5%
won
Topic
#4033

The sex between a man and woman is designed for reproduction.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description

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.

What I want to try in this exchange is to condition both sides of this topic under simple and restrictive terms.

I will present around four points that'll explain the topic or cement the validity therein.

There is a condition that the opposing side, who is commonly referred to as the opponent, the con side is to meet .

They cannot argue any points other than the points I presented. They cannot bring in other lines of points, points of others, thoughts of others, what people have written.

The reason being, I want to keep this simple, centralized and easy to follow and understand.

I repeat, the con side can only attempt to refute the points I have made with trying to demonstrate either inconsistency based on those points or questioning the points to show inconsistency and invalidity.

This is commonly done with analogies but I caution that they do have to be exactly parallel. No false equivalencies please. If there is an urge to create a hypothetical, it somehow has to tie in to one of my points to debunk them. This also keeps the relevance ultra tight.

The con side should not be coming up with their counter arguments that introduces brand new points outside of mine or suggest what arguments I should make to prove the topic statement true.

All it takes from the opposing side is to show genuine error or a fallacy in my points.

Then we contest back and forth on those points. If the points can't hold water, they're not strong enough to hold anything. Therefore they would stand refuted.

If they stand irrefutable, the opposing side would have failed and those that view and learn what they do from both sides decides the victor in edification.

Please send a message or comment for questions and clarity on the matter .

Round 1
Pro
#1
A man and a woman engaging in sex which is penile vaginal intercourse, this act is designed for what's called sexual reproduction.

If the other side needs for further clarity on that, they can seek for it. They didn't seek it prior to accepting the challenge, maybe they intend to engage with a close mind which appears to be the culture here.

Sex is designed for reproduction. How do we know what anything is designed for?

Well through observation, we witness how a design and structure produces an effect otherwise called a function.

For instance, the shoe is designed for the use of it being fastened to the foot, fit for the foot , to enable the foot protective wear upon the foot moving in some sort of active physical work.

We witness the design and structure of the shoe. The material of the sole that creates a barrier between the outer surface of the bottom of the foot and the contact of the environmental surface.

What else?

The form and shape of the shoe that accommodates the foot. The shoe strings that are used to fasten the shoe snugly in appropriate but adjustable fashion to the foot .

This should be clear and suffice regarding what a thing is designed for. It's the design, form and structure itself that communicates this. Like I mention constantly, it's the observation of the real world, reality that serves up evidence.

Nowadays more than ever, there are other channels and media that are a vehicle to purport as evidence. This is how the brainwashing occurs through what someone said, through a centralized following of popular influence or powerful influence itself.

Here are about four points, give or take.

1.Sex is designed for reproduction based on the shape, structure and design of spermatozoa.

2.The design, structure and shape of this germ cell is not intricately structured to serve anything other than fertilization properties.

3. The characteristics or traits of the product will apparently correspond with its production maker.

I can stop there to just keep it short and basic.

To expound further on that third point, I'll make an example.

The characteristics or traits of a snow angel corresponds to the object that made it or produced it. It corresponds to the object that produced it by fitting the shape, structure,outline and design of that object, thing, entity, maker, producer .

We do realize sexual reproduction is vastly more intricate and layered and we can go there if the con side is to challenge that third point on a warranted basis .

I'll leave it here for the round.



Con
#2
Preamble:
My opposing case shall consist of retorts, rebuttals, and counterarguments which do not propose any new contentions, but are simply a response to my opponent’s own arguments.

BOP:
Pro is making the claim that sex is designed for reproduction, so he is required to provide proof of this. He should also specify the context for which he is using the word “design.” For there to be design, there must be a designer.

So should my opponent prove a designer exists and explain the steps of the design, he has therefore established that a design has taken place.

Definitions:
Sex- 1. (Chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
Design- To create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
Designer- A person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail.
Reproduction- The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process.

Rebuttals:
“Sex is designed for reproduction. How do we know what anything is designed for?
 
Well through observation, we witness how a design and structure produces an effect otherwise called a function.
 
For instance, the shoe is designed for the use of it being fastened to the foot, fit for the foot , to enable the foot protective wear upon the foot moving in some sort of active physical work.
 
We witness the design and structure of the shoe. The material of the sole that creates a barrier between the outer surface of the bottom of the foot and the contact of the environmental surface.
 
What else?
 
The form and shape of the shoe that accommodates the foot. The shoe strings that are used to fasten the shoe snugly in appropriate but adjustable fashion to the foot .
 
This should be clear and suffice regarding what a thing is designed for. It's the design, form and structure itself that communicates this. Like I mention constantly, it's the observation of the real world, reality that serves up evidence.”
 
  • Sex is a verb.
  • Shoe is a noun.
  • There is proof that shoes have a designer. Sex does not.
Pro has broken his own rules. The description disallows the use of a False Equivalence Fallacy.
  • False Equivalence Fallacy- An informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
Sex is an activity two people participate in where the goal doesn’t necessarily have to be to impregnate.
 
“1.Sex is designed for reproduction based on the shape, structure and design of spermatozoa.
 
2.The design, structure and shape of this germ cell is not intricately structured to serve anything other than fertilization properties.
 
3. The characteristics or traits of the product will apparently correspond with its production maker.”
 
 Pro’s use of the term ‘design’ implies intentional creation. To prove design, Pro must first prove a designer exists. Demonstrating the intricacies of the human body is not proof of a designer. 
 

Round 2
Pro
#3
"For there to be design, there must be a designer."

Let me just reiterate this statement for your"must be a designer".

"1.Sex is designed for reproduction based on the shape, structure and design of spermatozoa."

See all the information you're looking for are right in these points. Don't allow them to go over your head as they say.

The design of sex fits the shape and form of the spermatozoa.

Just like the design of a toaster that consists of slots to fit the shape of toasted bread slices.

All we're looking at are shapes and forms that fit each other. The deflection from this irrefutable point comes when the opposing side consistently deflects with taking the light off designs and shapes focusing on a designer.

But to humor the Con side in regards to things going over your head, this topic is related to reproduction. So what reproduces people with which would include these sexual designs?

People.

"So should my opponent prove a designer exists and explain the steps of the design, he has therefore established that a design has taken place."

Not at all. You can separate the two. I can point out a design, shape or structure of something in and of itself.

So because we can observe how things fit together, match and correspond, that irrefutable point is being evaded and the Con side is deflecting.

"Definitions:
Sex- 1. (Chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.

Design- To create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.

Designer- A person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail.

Reproduction- The production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process."

Please stay within my points which includes the meaning of those points. I specifically indicate what sex is between a man and woman.

I specifically illustrate the different design examples.

I never used the term "designer".

This is where you're coming along to introduce your own interpretations. Do you wish to disqualify yourself already?

"There is proof that shoes have a designer. Sex does not."

The point is not about the designer. We're talking about the design itself, the design itself, the design itself, the design itself.

What is the difficulty in you understanding that or are you relentless in being evasive?

We can understand the function of the shoe , we can observe it has a shape, we can discuss the shape and its effect on things that relate .

Why do you feel we can't just acknowledge the shape of something as is , accept that it has a shape without confirming it had a shaper?

Like, don't we know a ball or cookie is round in and of itself?

Of course we do. It's called observation. We can see the shape and structure of a shoe and we confirm its intricate design to what it fits.

Let me break this down. A design has a shape and structure. That's all I'm talking about when discussing design.

I mean if it bothers you that much, maybe you prefer I use a different word.

Is this the best you have is to pick a semantic argument?

"Pro has broken his own rules. The description disallows the use of a False Equivalence Fallacy."

It kills me that you guys think you have the position to tell me the rules of my own debate topic and description.

Why waste any more of my time with you?

I specifically communicate to argue within my points. A 4 year old can do that.
You mean to tell me you guys can't have any integrity to honor and respect that?

This person knows spermatozoa is constituted, maybe that's a better word, constituted to fit the female for reproduction.

So you evade that reality and try to manufacture something else in your mind which you can debunk.

"Sex is an activity two people participate in where the goal doesn’t necessarily have to be to impregnate."

Stay within my points. I define sex in the context of this debate as penile vaginal intercourse.

You know that don't you? So why act as though I never stated that?

When you're referencing sex in this debate you are indeed referencing penile vaginal intercourse.

When you speak of the "goal", you speak of a person's intent. A person's intent doesn't matter. Why do you think regardless of intent, there are unplanned, unexpected or unwanted pregnancies?

We're not talking about what the person intends. We're talking about what the body itself does through an act called penile vaginal intercourse.

Society particularly liberalized society shys away from this like the body itself doesn't have a purpose of function serving like a goal for itself.

Through this act, bodily fluids are emitted, dispensed, discharged. Regardless of the personal intent, it doesn't change the function, structure or design of the elements in the fluid or substance.
You can put any spin on it you or someone else desires. You can absorb food for one intent while the absorption of it still exists its nutritional function or effect on the body therein.

"Pro’s use of the term ‘design’ implies intentional creation."

This is your implication. But what do I mean when using the term?

I'm truly disappointed but I shouldn't be surprised that it's hard for the opposing side to stay in the confines of my arguments.

"To prove design, Pro must first prove a designer exists."

This isn't my argument and it's not the topic. This is none other than a red herring.

"Demonstrating the intricacies of the human body is not proof of a designer. "

It isn't supposed to be. The topic is not "sex is proof of a designer".
You're mixing this topic up with something else.

You're hung up on the word "design" shying away from the obvious. I have demonstrated or it has been demonstrated so I can state my second point which is the following:

"2 .The design, structure and shape of this germ cell is not intricately structured to serve anything other than fertilization properties."

I do believe being that you know this, you're evading that by making a fuss over the word "design".

Do you agree that the germ cell has a shape ?

If you do, do we have to argue about proof over a shaper so to speak?

We don't have to argue about that or about a former, structurer, crafter, designer,builder, none of that nor is it what the topic is about.

A lot of things have a craft or build that demonstrates or what we can empirically learn what those things are for.


Con
#4
"For there to be design, there must be a designer."

Let me just reiterate this statement for your"must be a designer".

"1.Sex is designed for reproduction based on the shape, structure and design of spermatozoa."

See all the information you're looking for are right in these points. Don't allow them to go over your head as they say.

The design of sex fits the shape and form of the spermatozoa.
Sex is an activity, not a noun. 
For there to be a design, there must be a designer or by definition, it cannot be a design.

Just like the design of a toaster that consists of slots to fit the shape of toasted bread slices.
Pro is using a False Equivalence fallacy for the 2nd time! Pro, you are breaking your own rules that you set for yourself!! 


When you speak of the "goal", you speak of a person's intent. A person's intent doesn't matter. Why do you think regardless of intent, there are unplanned, unexpected or unwanted pregnancies?

We're not talking about what the person intends. We're talking about what the body itself does through an act called penile vaginal intercourse.
Okay, so currently, Pro has two things he must do before he can win this argument.:
  1. Prove that there is a designer. A design by definition requires a designer. He is wasting time by back-tracking on this.
  2. Prove that the intent of all sexual activity is specifically for reproduction. 
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Sex is an activity, not a noun.
For there to be a design, there must be a designer or by definition, it cannot be a design."

My response is so what?

The design, shape , structure, sculpture or painting of something can be discussed without going into what made it.

I say again, this is an evasion from the simple fact that shapes and designs alone tell us what they are for. We can see what fits what like a basketball ball going into a basket .

It's irrelevant in constantly looking at what was the shaper of that ball. We can see that it has a shape period.

"Pro is using a False Equivalence fallacy for the 2nd time! Pro, you are breaking your own rules that you set for yourself!!"

Apparently you're picking up the wrong equivocation or comparison or perhaps evading it.

The comparison or analogy is the shape of a slice bread fitting a slot in a toaster such as the phallus into the vaginal canal.

The design or shape of a basketball ball fitting into a basket likewise to that of the traits of the spermatozoa being compatible to the female fertility process.

The conception process is a more intricate, layered equivalency versus the other analogies.

But you haven't asked, more like evaded in asking how do these structures, shapes and designs fit.

I think you know it's obvious so why would you ask? That's walking right into a self refutation on your side.

I made the rules and terms so I decide if I'm going against them.

Between the evasion, red herrings, you're not dealing with my points.

I figured this because my points will just end up trapping the opposing side.

So the opposing side refuses to be tied down to those terms, inventing their own that they can easily play by.

Case and point below.

"Okay, so currently, Pro has two things he must do before he can win this argument.:
Prove that there is a designer. A design by definition requires a designer. He is wasting time by back-tracking on this.
Prove that the intent of all sexual activity is specifically for reproduction. "

These are your terms, the opposing side.

Nowhere in my points did I mention a designer so why are we talking about that?

It's a deflection tactic from the opposing side.

"All intent " for sex is not mentioned in any one of my points, another evasion.

Maybe this topic was too deep. Maybe we should have a debate on whether things have "intents" or functions in and of themselves.

Sometimes I just forget how brainwashed society has gotten.

So the opposing side has to deal with these terms which are mine and are the only ones that are valid. Why?

My topic, my house,my terms.

The shape or constitution of the spermatozoa tells us what it is for. The opposing side appears to resist the word "design". Again, maybe they like the word "constitution". They didn't say. That word or the word "shape" will possibly be better to digest or embraced more comfortably. Then again, this is suspected to be a cheap shot at picking a semantic argument in desperation to refute a position but it's more like moving the goal post.

The shape tells us what the spermatozoa is for. "For" meaning function or intent, purpose whatever. I'm not bogged down arguing preference over semantics.

The spermatozoa is constituted of a head attached to a bodily tail like structure.

Is that true or false?

The shape or structure of this germ cell causes its motility. So we can see so far based on its design which includes its shape states that it's suppose to move .

Well move where?

Let's look at more of it's structure to find out. It's all in the structure that tells us or helps us learn.

A design consists of a shape, a frame, a structure. That's all we're observing here so worrying about who or what designed it which I said shallowly speaking are people, is diverting attention off the subject itself.

This germ cell persists to move in the direction to find where it implants itself. But how does the germ cell find where to go? How does it know, how is it aware?

Just questions and answers to unpack the reality.

There's something of its structure that dictates some sort of specified migration.
Now because this process is more intricate than what we can learn on the surface, it does take more research or exploration to know the exact explanation to how it makes the way to its destination.

The explanation which I understand has to do with again , compatibility. The destination has something that fits, matches or corresponds with the receiving structure or design, the spermatozoa.
This corresponding link is through environmental chemical signal.

But just on the surface, one structure meets another, why?

Why does the germ cell travels where it goes ?

Regardless of the reason, we know it makes it into an organic process , up the reproductive systems without anybody giving it an anatomical map.

Like we can observe a cellular phone works, does what it does . It has a structure, design,shape, internally, externally and some corresponding components that link to cellular network signals.

Many of us don't know all the ins and outs or a full explanation on how it all works and comes together nevertheless does by some means.

We can observe or notice water hydrates or rehydrates our bodies. There are some structural elements in the water, namely atomic and or molecular structures that serve support through a link to fit other structures referred to as organic systemic mechanisms.

Between these corresponding structures results in product that links back in a cycle.

Hence the example of a double toasted sided slice of bread from a double sided heating mechanism of a toaster slot.

There are so many things around us by their structure, constitution that dictates what and why the function is what it is.

So to proceed in your journey in refuting my case, you'd have to question the shape, the constituted traits of the spermatozoa fitting its destination at all as well as its product fitting, matching, corresponding to the product maker in any way.

I don't see a way out of this but clearly you've walked right into a net to get captured.



Con
#6
I’ve listed the errors Pro made and the requirements needed for him to win this debate. 

If he doesn’t address these points in the next 2 rounds, he has forfeited his opportunity of turning this one-sided discussion around. 
Round 4
Pro
#7
Looks like neither one of us are budging.

Only thing is , it's proven that spermatozoa is meant for reproduction while you and others alike are trying to imply otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned the debate is over.

I do respect and recognize how you don't tend to go in circles as long as others , kudos on that.
Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
I've made countless points that have not received counterpoints.

When that happens, the opposing side has no rebuttals.

They just stand back and say "you're wrong, the burden on you to prove this and that".

This is what my points and counter points are for. We go hand to hand and see who can top the counter.

When you don't make the attempt to counter, you forfeit because you're not fighting back.

I got no rebuttal to my point of us knowing what a shape is without proving who or what the shaper was.

I got no rebuttal to my point that the body itself, the spermatozoa itself has a function/aim in of itself. Makes no difference the aim/intent of a person's mind.
I can decide to jump up and down on a bed. Doesn't change the function of the bed. Likewise jumping on and off a car . The car still is setup to do what it does.

All we do is observe, examine, ascertain the "shapes", mechanisms, components of these different things to convey their use.

This discussion could have been deeper than it was but you guys can get stubborn on different semantics.

Instead of using designed, the word "produced" may feel more comfortable to the opposing side.

Whether we say designed, structured, produced, the point is the entity itself that serves functionality.

I went into the structure, design, constituents of the spermatozoa to explain functionality, the functionality of sex. 

We were never going to get there with the opposing side being hung up. 

We can have a separate debate about proving how the reproductive system came about.

If the opposing side wishes to challenge on that, they can message me.

But the whole diversion here from the opposing side was to stand clear of the obvious functionality of things which was my position and the bottom line of the topic statement.
Con
#10
Pro states that the idea that a design requires a designer are my conditions, not his. 
This excuse is not a rebuttal nor does it exempt him from this logic. 
Because he uses the word choice ‘design,’ the only way to win this is by proving a designer. 

Since he has yet to meet the burden of proof, I shall consider this a victory for myself. 

Extend ALL arguments.