Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#5695
Dual topic : Is homosexuality along with asexuality "sexual orientation" disorders? Do we have a right to judge sexual lifestyles?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
358
debates
39.66%
won
Description
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.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
I do hope and aim that this exchange is as substance filled as possible not making any offense or disrespect to you or anybody.
Homosexuality and asexuality.
These two sexualities are disorders. What type of disorder?
A physical disorder.
Here's an example of a physical disorder. A person that has backwards limbs is physically out of order as a natural innate bipedal person.
Other examples are tourette syndrome and cerebral palsy . These conditions are out of order with the appropriate function of the body for healthy optimal living.
This is likewise with the sexualities mentioned. Having sexual reproductive organs with no sexual attraction and interest ultimately are out of order with one another.
Have sexual reproductive organs with a desire to use them where it does not complete the order or cycle to their function is out of order.
Now if we can be honest, going by these lines of points, all is true. This has nothing to do with right or wrong or moral or wicked.
But it does roll into the next topic. We have a right to judge what a medical condition is or determine what it is. That's making a judgment. We judge the condition, diagnosis, prognosis and or treatment.
Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it.
Notice how I'm using the term judge, see.
We judge either in a professional capacity, medical capacity, intellectual capacity, rational capacity and on and on and on. We judge what the probable outcomes are, the negatives and all like that of all these disorders.
We're allowed to judge them and we allow ourselves to judge them because it concerns us and our well being. It concerns all of humanity. Our health, our physical conditions and conducts matter.
We have laws, we have medical procedures, medical evaluations, medical studies, surveys that contribute to our judgment on how to live and flourish.
Another topic I'm debating about is in regards to freedom of speech. Everything including language has judgment put on it. Everything including actions and behaviors.
Judgment is made to draw a legal line, judicial line, jurisdiction line. For instance, a line for a legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. A line or parameter set forth for the FDA.
Lines set forth for medical and dental care, dietary care, hygienic care,personal care, parental care, public care and of course sexual care.
In that we evaluate ramifications and corrections.
We evaluate and judge the affect or hindrance homosexuality/asexuality has on the population. We evaluate the contributions to society, to children, to education and perhaps religion.
Then off course from the legal standpoint, congress makes judgement. The supreme court makes judgement to legalizing certain things classifying certain things as hate speech to the LGBT. Making amendments and orders to public service organizations to recognize the LGBT .
A judgment has to be made of a homosexual or an asexual. They have to be judged as an equal or not. They have to be judged as someone in a bias to discriminate against or not. They have to be judged to receive the same marital rights, relationship rights and or the same social receptions as any other involved in marriage, in a relationship or parenting/guardianship affair.
So we have the audacity. From the big man down to the common man.
I do hope and aim that this exchange is as substance filled as possible not making any offense or disrespect to you or anybody.
Sure.
Homosexuality and asexuality.These two sexualities are disorders. What type of disorder?A physical disorder.Here's an example of a physical disorder. A person that has backwards limbs is physically out of order as a natural innate bipedal person.Other examples are tourette syndrome and cerebral palsy . These conditions are out of order with the appropriate function of the body for healthy optimal living.
Disorder merely means that something is not achieving the desired goal. But who gets to decide the goal here anyway?
This is likewise with the sexualities mentioned. Having sexual reproductive organs with no sexual attraction and interest ultimately are out of order with one another.
Who decides what order is? Society? Society has already decided that homosexuality isnt a disorder. So what is disorder?
What proof do you have that what you are describing is a disorder? What is "order" and "disorder"? Definition?
Have sexual reproductive organs with a desire to use them where it does not complete the order or cycle to their function is out of order.
Who decides ? Functions, purposes are assigned by mind. People spend most of the day not using their sexual organ.
But it does roll into the next topic. We have a right to judge what a medical condition is or determine what it is. That's making a judgment. We judge the condition, diagnosis, prognosis and or treatment.
By same logic, we can determine that homosexuality isnt a disorder, which brings us back to where we started.
Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it.
By same logic, people have a right to judge straight people. After all, "straight" is also a type of sexuality.
We judge either in a professional capacity, medical capacity, intellectual capacity, rational capacity and on and on and on. We judge what the probable outcomes are, the negatives and all like that of all these disorders.
My opponent is using examples of judging to say that judging is okay. This is just circular reasoning.
We're allowed to judge them and we allow ourselves to judge them because it concerns us and our well being. It concerns all of humanity. Our health, our physical conditions and conducts matter.
So your opinion is that you have a right to judge people if it affects your or humanity's health?
By same standard, gay people have a right to judge you because you just happen to affect their goals.
We have laws, we have medical procedures, medical evaluations, medical studies, surveys that contribute to our judgment on how to live and flourish.
And what do you mean by flourish? I kinda doubt that judgment makes lives of gay people better.
Another topic I'm debating about is in regards to freedom of speech. Everything including language has judgment put on it. Everything including actions and behaviors.
If there was a robot which killed people if you told it to, such free speech wouldnt be justified.
Judgment is made to draw a legal line, judicial line, jurisdiction line. For instance, a line for a legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. A line or parameter set forth for the FDA.
How does lines being drawn at one place justify them being drawn at other? Ans who draws them?
Lines set forth for medical and dental care, dietary care, hygienic care,personal care, parental care, public care and of course sexual care.
You just have to explain who draws the line. You are defending that its okay to judge all sexualities.
In that we evaluate ramifications and corrections.We evaluate and judge the affect or hindrance homosexuality/asexuality has on the population. We evaluate the contributions to society, to children, to education and perhaps religion.
So if a person doesnt reproduce, such person should be judged, right? Can you explain why reproduction is good?
Then off course from the legal standpoint, congress makes judgement. The supreme court makes judgement to legalizing certain things classifying certain things as hate speech to the LGBT. Making amendments and orders to public service organizations to recognize the LGBT .
Okay.
A judgment has to be made of a homosexual or an asexual. They have to be judged as an equal or not. They have to be judged as someone in a bias to discriminate against or not. They have to be judged to receive the same marital rights, relationship rights and or the same social receptions as any other involved in marriage, in a relationship or parenting/guardianship affair.
Oh, so now you are talking about judgment in a different sense. Yes, we can judge homosexuals as equals.
However, the topic is about judging homosexuality and all other sexualities, which is something we cant judge without reason.
So present us a reason why we should bother to judge all the sexualities. Sounds like a waste of time, honestly.
Round 2
"Disorder merely means that something is not achieving the desired goal. But who gets to decide the goal here anyway?"
So by this definition anything can be a disorder if it's not the desired goal. This would include healthy people born with no disorders.
If my body is functioning not the way I want it , it is a disorder albeit a doctor will say I have no disorders. My blood tests, everything is normal and in order.
Are you sure you don't want to recant that definition you stated?
"Who decides what order is? Society? Society has already decided that homosexuality isnt a disorder. So what is disorder?"
Society, people, yes decide. A disorder is something out of order like that backwards limb example I gave.
"What proof do you have that what you are describing is a disorder? What is "order" and "disorder"? Definition?"
The proof is the human body .
Order is that which is consistent with another to produce its structured function. Disorder is the opposite of that and apparently your opposing case.
"Who decides ?"
The human body.
"Functions, purposes are assigned by mind. People spend most of the day not using their sexual organ."
Tell me, why would the mind assign the body to ejaculate reproductive semen where it can't impregnate?
Is this consistent to you?
"By same logic, people have a right to judge straight people. After all, "straight" is also a type of sexuality."
Yes that's correct. We make the judgment and can see what becomes of heterosexuality which is a heavily populated planet.
"My opponent is using examples of judging to say that judging is okay. This is just circular reasoning."
I'm not using examples to say judgment is or isn't ok. I'm using them to explain the point of making judgments .
So the opposing side is to argue whether the conclusion I came to about the purpose of judging is correct. If not, the onus is on the opposing side to argue what the purpose of making a judgment is but first define the term judgement.
"So your opinion is that you have a right to judge people if it affects your or humanity's health?
By same standard, gay people have a right to judge you because you just happen to affect their goals."
Absolutely. Any people should make justified judgements. We make judgments all the time to make decisions and make progress. Speaking of goals. In a sports situation, I have to make a judgment on a play to be successful to score a goal. Oh yes .
"And what do you mean by flourish? I kinda doubt that judgment makes lives of gay people better."
Flourish means to sustain, grow, develop, progress, amount to, etc .,etc.,etc.
"If there was a robot which killed people if you told it to, such free speech wouldnt be justified."
Unless it killed people in defense of defenseless people.
"How does lines being drawn at one place justify them being drawn at other? Ans who draws them?"
Depends on the basis and reason. Who draws them is whoever that is . Whom has cause to is whoever that shall be. Everything has reason and cause.
"You just have to explain who draws the line. You are defending that its okay to judge all sexualities."
I've never formed my argument in terms of "ok" or "not ok". I say we have a right to judgment. Question is what type of judgment? These are questions to ask instead of asking who , who, who.
It's more so what we're getting, not who's giving it.
"So if a person doesnt reproduce, such person should be judged, right? Can you explain why reproduction is good?"
Yes a person that doesn't sexually reproduce has been given a judgment. That person that can't sexually reproduce has been judged in medical terms as sterile. Likewise with one that can has been judged as fertile.
Sexual reproduction is looked at as good in a society that defines good for human survival which would be sexual reproduction. Do you follow?
Alright.
"Oh, so now you are talking about judgment in a different sense. Yes, we can judge homosexuals as equals."
No no, re-read the entire first round. This time without reading in your pre-conceived interpretation. This is what I've been explaining the whole round. I've made several illustrations from the medical standpoint to a legal one of making judgments.
The supreme court, a court of law, a small claims judge makes a judgment to the party, in ruling or favor of the defendant or plaintiff.
"However, the topic is about judging homosexuality and all other sexualities, which is something we cant judge without reason.
So present us a reason why we should bother to judge all the sexualities. Sounds like a waste of time, honestly."
We've already judged them. We judged homosexuality as well as asexuality as non reproductive sexualities.
So we're allowed to do that, is that right?
Yes. This way we know what they are.
I'll reiterate the points again from the first round:
"Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it."
"This has nothing to do with right or wrong or moral or wicked."
So the opposing side need not to ask about is this moral or good or bad. We're not talking about that .
Order is that which is consistent with another to produce its structured function. Disorder is the opposite of that and apparently your opposing case
This is not a definition, because "another" can be another homosexual, making homosexuality order, not a disorder.
Further, "structured function" is subjectively defined, since function is subjective.
Further, almost no individual is completely same as another, so you cant even have standard to meassure.
With definition obviously failing, I have no need to address other arguments, nor I have time to, sorry.
Round 3
"This is not a definition, because "another" can be another homosexual, making homosexuality order, not a disorder."
You can perhaps make anything a disorder based on a context. In this context, it is a disorder. Did you forget the context already? Do you have to read over the first round again?
On top of that, it is not your place to dictate what defines what. It is illogical to argue over definitions. How many times until it gets through many of you all's heads?
"Further, "structured function" is subjectively defined, since function is subjective."
What is the function of you typing letters here to make a response in this debate ?
It inputs letters into the screen to be read. Being that's the same for any typing letters, how's it subjective?
It's the same no matter .
So where you get this "function" is subjective rhetoric is just more brainwashed propaganda or you're confusing the word with something else.
I didn't say purpose or goal, I said function. So forget the rehearsed cliche rebuttals for pro homosexuality. A function is what it is without subjection. It has no dictation. Nobody can dictate an innate function. An inherent function demonstrates to you what it is.
"Further, almost no individual is completely same as another, so you cant even have standard to meassure."
A person with functioning eyes sees just as another that does the same. There's you're measurable standard of what the function of sight constitutes.
Same applies to individuals that type letters on a website to be read.
"With definition obviously failing, I have no need to address other arguments, nor I have time to, sorry."
Please go ahead and concede to this topic as well.
As you say, you don't have the time.
You can perhaps make anything a disorder based on a context. In this context, it is a disorder. Did you forget the context already? Do you have to read over the first round again?
Context does not change the fact that order and disorder are subjective, and that your definition said "another" but didnt say which "another".
On top of that, it is not your place to dictate what defines what. It is illogical to argue over definitions. How many times until it gets through many of you all's heads?
Without definitions, no argument is possible. Thus, since you provided no definitions in description, and clearly invalid definitions in round 1, your argument is impossible.
What is the function of you typing letters here to make a response in this debate ?It inputs letters into the screen to be read. Being that's the same for any typing letters, how's it subjective?It's the same no matter .So where you get this "function" is subjective rhetoric is just more brainwashed propaganda or you're confusing the word with something else.I didn't say purpose or goal, I said function. So forget the rehearsed cliche rebuttals for pro homosexuality. A function is what it is without subjection. It has no dictation. Nobody can dictate an innate function. An inherent function demonstrates to you what it is.
None of this changes the fact that function is subjectively chosen and that everything has some function, and so do homosexuals. You just chose function of reproduction, but I could easily say that better function is non-reproduction. So is being straight a disorder now?
Round 4
"Context does not change the fact that order and disorder are subjective, and that your definition said "another" but didnt say which "another"."
This is not a rebuttal. When you make an actual rebuttal, you have to prove your point. Prove that something can't be a disorder or in order based on the particular context in how you look at it .
The definition is still in the CONTEXT OF THIS TOPIC. You're committing a great fallacy stripping the definition out of the context of my position and topic.
I've already demonstrated the disorder and I'm pointing you to observe our own bodies demonstrating this. So it is isn't subjective. When I observe your body breathing air due to the capacity of your lungs and the bodies of others doing the same, prove that is subjective. Subjected to what? You can't be correct to say one person and not anybody else. You can't be correct to say according to my opinion. Our bodies TELL US AND DEMONSTRATE TO US their proper orders and functions. Not the other way around. Re-think your counterpoint before you insert it here.
"Without definitions, no argument is possible. Thus, since you provided no definitions in description, and clearly invalid definitions in round 1, your argument is impossible."
No, without an argument, no argument is possible. You're being finicky over a definition that really doesn't help you because you have no rebuttal towards my argument.
By the way, the definition I gave is NOT MY ARGUMENT. Deal with my argument which is just about everything I've said in the first round or forfeit.
"None of this changes the fact that function is subjectively chosen and that everything has some function, and so do homosexuals. You just chose function of reproduction, but I could easily say that better function is non-reproduction. So is being straight a disorder now?"
Well PROVE IT. You're just saying subjective, subjective, subjective without actually proving what you're saying is true. You prove your case, you can debunk mine.
Prove that according to our fertile sexually reproductive bodies, non-sexual reproduction is an inherent function. This is the problem with what you're saying. Our sexual reproductive organs are what they before anybody has to say anything or make an opinion at all. I did not choose for sexual reproductive organs to be that way so you can't stick it on me calling it subjective. You can't stick it on anybody.
You can't invalidate the function therein so just concede and forfeit. The sexual reproductive system being used for non sexual reproductive activity is inconsistent which lines up with the definition I said:
"The proof is the human body .
Order is that which is consistent with another to produce its structured function. Disorder is the opposite of that and apparently your opposing case."
It is that which is consistent with another.
So the "is that" is sexual reproductive properties which is consistent " with another " (sexual reproductive function).
So you either concede to this or prove that sexual reproductive properties with non sexual reproductive function is consistent. If you can't prove that, you have not disproven it's a disorder as is.
I rest my case .
"Context does not change the fact that order and disorder are subjective, and that your definition said "another" but didnt say which "another"."This is not a rebuttal. When you make an actual rebuttal, you have to prove your point. Prove that something can't be a disorder or in order based on the particular context in how you look at it .The definition is still in the CONTEXT OF THIS TOPIC. You're committing a great fallacy stripping the definition out of the context of my position and topic.
Context doesnt matter, because you must prove that your context is right and the one which should be used. Plus, nothing you said changes that disorder and order are subjective, and that you used a bad definition which disproved your case.
I've already demonstrated the disorder and I'm pointing you to observe our own bodies demonstrating this. So it is isn't subjective.
It is subjective, as you are saying that certain body part or certain function is the goal, when it doesnt have to be.
When I observe your body breathing air due to the capacity of your lungs and the bodies of others doing the same, prove that is subjective.
When you say that we should all breathe or that breathing is good, or that breathing is not a disorder, that would be subjective unless you can prove it isnt.
Subjected to what? You can't be correct to say one person and not anybody else. You can't be correct to say according to my opinion. Our bodies TELL US AND DEMONSTRATE TO US their proper orders and functions. Not the other way around. Re-think your counterpoint before you insert it here.
Subjective doesnt mean subjected. It means depending on opinion. You think bodies tell you proper orders and functions while ignoring that it is you who decided that those specific functions are proper without proof.
"Without definitions, no argument is possible. Thus, since you provided no definitions in description, and clearly invalid definitions in round 1, your argument is impossible."No, without an argument, no argument is possible. You're being finicky over a definition that really doesn't help you because you have no rebuttal towards my argument.
You cannot have an argument without definitions. Arguments are made from words, which just happen to require definitions.
By the way, the definition I gave is NOT MY ARGUMENT. Deal with my argument which is just about everything I've said in the first round or forfeit.
So without a definition, you have no argument. Again, I am still waiting for a proper definition of order and disorder, which I hope is superior to the one I provided.
"None of this changes the fact that function is subjectively chosen and that everything has some function, and so do homosexuals. You just chose function of reproduction, but I could easily say that better function is non-reproduction. So is being straight a disorder now?"Well PROVE IT. You're just saying subjective, subjective, subjective without actually proving what you're saying is true. You prove your case, you can debunk mine.
The burden of proof happens to be on you to prove that 1. Your definition is objectively true, which it cannot be, 2. Your arguments are independent of your opinion, which they cannot be, 3. That your definition is better than mine.
I have easily proved that you chose certain body functions as goals, so it is subjective choice.
Prove that according to our fertile sexually reproductive bodies, non-sexual reproduction is an inherent function. This is the problem with what you're saying. Our sexual reproductive organs are what they before anybody has to say anything or make an opinion at all. I did not choose for sexual reproductive organs to be that way so you can't stick it on me calling it subjective. You can't stick it on anybody.
"Non-sexual reproduction"? Anyway, it is obvious that it is you who is saying that sexual organs have a function of reproduction. Function is defined as achieving desired goal, thus if reproduction isnt a desired goal, then no such function exists.
Further, many people dont reproduce, so if you are saying that sexual organs "do it on their own", that is obviously false, since there are cases where that doesnt happen.
So since you cannot explain how a function, that you say exists irrelevant of your opinion, doesnt exist where you claim it does, the conclusion simply follows that such function only exists in your mind, thus is subjective.
You can't invalidate the function therein so just concede and forfeit. The sexual reproductive system being used for non sexual reproductive activity is inconsistent which lines up with the definition I said:
I thought you want for people to challenge your views. I dont see why do you ask of people to forfeit debates.
Anyway, you must prove that what you say is inconsistent is inconsistent. Obviously, everything that happens in the world happens without contradiction, since contradictive things existing is not logially possible.
"The proof is the human body .Order is that which is consistent with another to produce its structured function. Disorder is the opposite of that and apparently your opposing case."It is that which is consistent with another.
You didnt define what another means.
So the "is that" is sexual reproductive properties which is consistent " with another " (sexual reproductive function).
I could say that order is properties which are consistent with another (another being function that is existence without reproduction).
So now, reproduction is a disorder.
Round 5
"Context doesnt matter, because you must prove that your context is right and the one which should be used. Plus, nothing you said changes that disorder and order are subjective, and that you used a bad definition which disproved your case."
What I'm getting from you is that context doesn't matter because I have to prove it is right. Why would I have to prove something to be right if it doesn't matter in the first place?
It's like saying shoe size doesn't matter because I have to know the right shoe size . Makes no sense. You got it backwards. The shoe size would matter so this is the reason why I have to go by shoe size and get the correct size. When you say it doesn't matter, it eliminates the basis. The basis has to matter for it to be a basis. So because context matters, I have to verify it's right . You're just dismissing what I said in the first round and after as you have yet to give a rebuttal because you have none.
Saying disorder and order is subjective is a copout response. It's saying these things really don't exist. One can say this is a disorder while another calls the same in order so which is it? A thing that is called a disorder that also is called in order, either one doesn't inherently exist.
But we know what inherently exists by our bodies and the results that carry over into the real world.
A sexual reproductive organ used for non sexual reproductive function is not consistent. It is not in order(inconsistent ) as it displays in the real world the antithetical properties. This is not based on subjective input. This is true regardless of the observer and truth teller.
So you either tell the truth about what you observe and concede or struggle with your case telling lies.
"It is subjective, as you are saying that certain body part or certain function is the goal, when it doesnt have to be."
I'm saying what the bodies are saying. If you're honest you'd say the same thing too. So it's not subjective. Is it subjective that I say our lungs take in oxygen? No. That FACT is not based on me saying it.
Here's what you're probably pretentiously trying to argue. You think because a reporter is reporting facts, it's all subject to the messenger or reporter. Just because you have somebody reporting the news or the FACTS, it doesn't make it subjective.
Stop trying to fake it until you make it because you won't make this. You can keep trying to hold up that weak defensive argumentative wall, but I just about bashed every so called supportive beam to hold it up.
"When you say that we should all breathe or that breathing is good, or that breathing is not a disorder, that would be subjective unless you can prove it isnt."
Look how you're adding to what I said. I never said "should" in there at all. Why did you add a word I never used? Where did I say anything about good or bad?
Don't quote exactly what I say and build a strawman in your response.
"Subjective doesnt mean subjected. It means depending on opinion. You think bodies tell you proper orders and functions while ignoring that it is you who decided that those specific functions are proper without proof."
Depending on an opinion is subjection. The proof is our bodies. But just keep denying it. You can't disprove that out lungs have a function of taking in oxygen. You can't disprove we're are using what we are using in our physical and mental functions to interact in this debate. Are you going to say us using whatever we're using to interact with is based on opinion too ?
Is it not a fact that we're using technology orchestrated by our physical and mental function?
What's the proof? Our physical and mental properties. Not according to my opinion but according to the physical and mental properties themselves. Go ahead and deny it. Make up a false reality pretending that this isn't true.
"You cannot have an argument without definitions. Arguments are made from words, which just happen to require definitions."
Are we going to keep going in circles on this?
You need an argument to make an argument. You can have a million definitions with no argument. For example, you're using multiple words with definitions but have no real arguments to counter mine. You just strawman and deny the facts just being plain delusional.
"So without a definition, you have no argument. Again, I am still waiting for a proper definition of order and disorder, which I hope is superior to the one I provided."
Ok you forfeit. I have made multiple points in the first round and the opposing side is trying to argue a definition as a red herring with no real defense. All this is filibustering and making it into a subterfuge.
No disrespect to this person. But the individual is turning out to be a real waste of a topic on . You actually have individuals that deal with the points line by line. For example, the topic: The 9-5 is modern day slavery. That's an example of scrutinizing every point and sentence with questions and counterpoints.
"The burden of proof happens to be on you to prove that 1. Your definition is objectively true, which it cannot be, 2. Your arguments are independent of your opinion, which they cannot be, 3. That your definition is better than mine.
I have easily proved that you chose certain body functions as goals, so it is subjective choice."
The burden of proof is on me to prove what you're saying is true about objective bodily functions being subjective, no. That's your claim , you prove it.
It doesn't matter if I choose to discuss a specific innate body function/goal. Prove that I designed any bodily function. Being that I didn't design the function or any of them, you are in error or telling a lie that the function is based on me and what I say or anybody else.
You know these functions are what they are on their own without anybody's opinion. You just keep trying to fake it until you make it which is impossible to make this.
Just concede like you normally did in the past debates and go to admitting now that bodily functions are what they are and you can say " so what". That's the best you can say. You say " true , but so what". I'll accept a "so what" from you.
"Non-sexual reproduction"?
Did the text stuttered? What? Does the cat got your tongue?
You can't prove it, you can't do it. Look how you evade out of this with the "Anyway".
"Non-sexual reproduction"? Anyway"
You get a kick out of challenges you can't overcome don't you?
"Non-sexual reproduction"? Anyway, it is obvious that it is you who is saying that sexual organs have a function of reproduction. Function is defined as achieving desired goal, thus if reproduction isnt a desired goal, then no such function exists."
So why am I saying it Einstein? What is spermatozoa that is found in these organs? What is it , what does it do?
Aren't you tired of playing dumb? Why do I have spermatozoa in my body with no desire to use it?
You're walking right into an inconsistency but you're trying a "playing dumb" tactic. You could of came up with a better counterargument than this. But I am giving you too much credit.
"Further, many people dont reproduce, so if you are saying that sexual organs "do it on their own", that is obviously false, since there are cases where that doesnt happen."
But you do admit it is a function of the organs. How else can people reproduce without a "reproduce" function?
So if you agree that people reproduce, then you also admit that this is not according to me or according to you admitting it. Therefore it is not subjective.
"So since you cannot explain how a function, that you say exists irrelevant of your opinion, doesnt exist where you claim it does, the conclusion simply follows that such function only exists in your mind, thus is subjective."
You just said many people don't reproduce. Is that your subjective take? If not , it works both ways pal.
"I thought you want for people to challenge your views. I dont see why do you ask of people to forfeit debates.
Anyway, you must prove that what you say is inconsistent is inconsistent. Obviously, everything that happens in the world happens without contradiction, since contradictive things existing is not logially possible."
They aren't my views , these are facts unless you mean my views of the facts. Facts are already proven. You're using this delusional tactic pretending these facts don't exist in your face .
"You didnt define what another means."
So the "is that" is sexual reproductive properties which is consistent " with another " (sexual reproductive function).
"I could say that order is properties which are consistent with another (another being function that is existence without reproduction).
So now, reproduction is a disorder."
You didn't even try to make this make sense. What are you talking about?
Look, are sexually reproductive organs being used for non sexual reproductive means consistent?
Let's see if the opposing side can answer this truthfully.
Extend all arguments.