Flaws are mostly objective

Rebutting my opponentMy opponent suggests that validity is subjective, therefore flaws must be subjective as well. The problem with this argument is that once purpose is applied, opinions (what subjectivity is based on) become irrelevant.My case for flaws being mostly objective P1: Purpose creates objective flaws.P2: Our lives are mostly based around purpose/ finding purposeP3: Flaws are mostly objectiveDefense of P1My defense of P1 is rather simple, if you apply a specific purpose to something (or if there is a set purpose of something) then certain flaws cannot be regarded as opinion and must be based on an objective truth. Applied Purposes indicate objective flawsApplying purpose opens the gateway to objective flaws existingExample Lets say someone creates a simple music player to have these purposes:a) To catch radio signals and play all available radio stations through the speaker b) To have a fully functional volume, bass, and treble controlc) To be able to play tapes, CDs, and mp3 CdsNow imagine the music player can do all the above except play CDs due to the machine malfunctioning in some way, this would be an objective flaw, not opinion. If someone came along and said "In my opinion, this machine has absolutely no flaws" they would be wrong because the purpose filled the variables in the equation and the answer wasn't what it was supposed to be.Saying that "flaws" are mostly subjective would be like saying "the answers to problems" are mostly subjective. Answers to problems would be subjective if the equation being presented was X+X=, but once you filled the variableswith specifics like 2+2=,then the answer is objective. So if you apply that concept to the topic of this debate, once you have a specfic purpose for something then you have estabolished a flaw based on truth not based on opinion(like if a mathematical equation had an answer that wasn't compatable with the problem).Set purposes (which have nothing to do with human thought or opinion) like functions, indicate objective flawsIn nature there are purposes that we humans don't apply purpose to, like functionality. If you study the functionality of things in nature you will notice flaws that are not based on opinion but scientific fact.Example 1The liver functions regardless if humans give purpose to it or not, so the liver functioning would be a set purpose. If the functionality of the liver suffers in some way then there would be an objective flaw (not based on opinion). Someone could come around and say "In my opinion, your liver failing doesn't indicate that there is a flaw with your liver", but would you take this person seriously? That would be like stating "In my opinion, taking away 2 from 5,won't give you 3" but in reality, they are wrong.Example 2The ecosystem would exist regardless of whether or not humans applied purpose to it or not, so the ecosystem functioning to it's fullest extent would be a set purpose. Certain species dying off would indicate an objective flaw with the ecosystem. Someone could say "In my opinion, all these species going extict doesn't really indicate that there is a flaw with the ecosystem" but according to science, they would be sadly mistaken. (Source showing biological flaws are based on scientific fact, not opinion)http://spittoon.23andme.com...Defense of P2To defend P2, all I have to do is argue that our lives are almost soley based on purpose/ set purpose. .Every organ in our body has a set purpose to function.Every key Con presses on his key board has a certain purpose to function.Every throught in my opponent's mind regarding this debate has a purpose (to be used successfuly in a rebuttal for example).If I get up off my seat it is most likley for a purpose (to get a glass of milk lets say)...It's safe to say that most of our lives are based on purpose, even if we applied no purpose there would still be set purposes (functionality) which surrounds us in nature.Defense of P3To defend P3, all I have to do is argue that my first 2 contentions were logically sound...I believe I have done this but I'll leave that up to the voters to decide.Re-Hashing of my logical argument:P1: Purpose creates objective flaws.P2: Our lives are mostly based around set purpose/ applying purposeP3: Flaws are mostly objectiveConclusion: 1) Just because someone can have an opinion regarding something being a flaw or not doesn't mean they are correct, if they are wrong, then that flaw is objectively true and not based on opinion. 2) Once you apply meaning to a variable the stage is set, and any props not being on the stage when they should be would be an objective flaw once the purpose has been laid down. 3) Things in nature can malfunction, once this happens it is an objective flaw and not based on opinion.4) There may be instances where flaws could be considered subjective, but due to the amount of applied purpose combined with the set purpose in nature, it's more logical to say that most flaws are in fact objective.