"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.
Well it is terrible I'll give you that, is it terrible debating with those that most likely indulge libertarian values but I strive to help.
this was a terrrible debate. instead of arguing back and forth over semantics and contridictions You BOTH failed to consider the idea that sex could be for another reason rather than procreation.
what about pleasure? what about intimacy? reproduction is the result of sex, true, but does the goal define the process?
mall, you need to stop qubbiling with what others think and just give your evidence. you get distracted too easily by what others say that you lose your point.
lancelot, you do the same thing, you argued the semantics and didnt even bother trying to counter prove mall. the fallacy only is determined at the end of the debate. You werent taking this seriously and i am annoyed by your lack of effort.
all in all, wasted debate.
Well yes, but I was just pointing out that I did win this topic in the so-called "regular" way.
Not all kritiks are rocket science, this one is incredibly obvious.
Made me think of the good old days where I won this topic without knowing what a kritik is...Maybe I unconsciously used one, who knows.
So many fun kritiks available... Best of luck.