Sexual intercourse has a uniform design

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. 

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.

It will change the face of child abandonment

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

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

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

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

Of course I can dismiss that and utilize this rotund object for a swing. Perhaps as part of an obstacle course or a planter.

So we can use things any old kind of way. Doesn't change the innate intent. All we have to do is really observe the result comparing the breakdowns to the build ups if you will."

• Minus the asexual matter, it's irrelevant here. 
  

• 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.
  

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

• Now you can't argue, you cannot argue one iota that regardless of the design,  it can't be defied. I haven't made that argument. I can argue and be correct in doing so that defying the order DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS.
  

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

• SEE , WITHOUT OBJECTIVE, WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION, NO BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ESTABLISHED FACT. THEREFORE NO RIGHT AND WRONG. Which heads into liberalism but we won't go there.  I won't even go any further with analogies. What's the use of them when the most simplest , plainest ones go over someone's head.
  

• Right and wrong are human perceptions, the application of human values.  There is no "right and wrong" beyond human application.  There is no right or wrong on the Moon or within the Sun or inherent to any plant or animal.
  
• PRO asserts that we should begin by stipulating certain conclusions, establishing a foundation of facts before observation and hypothesis. 
  
• CON asserts that hypothesis, observation, testing should precede conclusions.
  
• CON asserts that the establishment of any fact is always contingent on changes to conditions and new observations. 
  
• Scientific theory depends on testable, repeatable results before any factual assertion. 
  
• Religious theory establishes facts first then rules out any non-conforming observations, making theories generally untestable and unrepeatable- and therefore, unreliable.
  

• So here's the issue which I think could make this whole thing futile. That is as it appears, we may have a foundational problem. If you don't see an objective purpose  in sexual intercourse, you disagree at the start of the criteria for this debate.
  

• PRO is saying if we don't accept that sexual intercourse was designed for the purpose of procreation, then PRO can't prove that intercourse has a UNIFORM design. 
  
• PRO and CON agree that PRO's argument is futile. 
  
• PRO set no criteria for acceptance in this debate.
  
• PRO must prove objective purpose to prove design, right? 
  
• CON calls rejecting objective purpose fair game.
  

• The criteria by the way is only dealing with SEXUAL intercourse between male and female. Human beings if you neeeeded that spelled out.
  

• OBJECTION:
  
• PRO failed to define terms in the description and then forfeited R1, ceding any authority for setting terms to CON.  PRO's accepted those terms in R2 by lack of objection.
  
• PRO has no authority to set terms in R3 of a 4-round debate.  CON's definition of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE as genital-genital sexual contact between at least two organisms is the standard for this debate.  VOTERS should consider any gender combination and any number of organisms in any combination as SEXUAL INTERCOURSE for the purposes of evaluating UNIFORM DESIGN.
  
• CON made this standard explicit by comparing hot tub lesbian orgies to praying mantises in the R1 setting of terms.
  

• Pls. find sources in comments.
  

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

• So you can agree that there is intent therein besides personal intent?
  

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