Flaws are mostly objective

Counter Arguments:"Premise one is immediately false"It seems my opponent has backed himself into a corner here, and I will explain how.There are 2 options:1) Premise 1 is flawlessIf my first premise is flawless, then this means it is 100% logically sound and therefore I have shown that flaws are mostly objective.2) Premise 1 has flawsIf my first premise has flaws with it, then according to my opponent's own logic it is not factual that my premise is flawed, it's just his opinion and his arguments hold as much weight as saying "Stairway to Heaven is the greatest song ever recorded". If my opponent's indication regarding my first premise being flawed is based on factual truth, then that in itself proves that objective flaws exist and this completely contradicts Con's claim that flaws are completely subjective.I'm amused by the irony of my Con implying that there is truth behind one of my premises being flawed, in a debate where he also argues that claiming something is flawed isn't based on anything factual or true. "...the manufacturer’s purpose is not superior to the individual’s purpose"Not that it matters, but the manufacturer's purpose technically would be far more superiorIf I created a pencil with the purpose of using lead to write, then that would be the main purpose of it's existence because if someone didn't need to write, the pencil wouldn't exist. However if someone didn't want to use the pencil to make a pencil model house (for example), pencils would still exist even if the additional purpose didn't. Since the existence of the pencil is only based one one purpose, then it's safe to say it could be considered more superior if it came down to it. "Silly putty was invented during WWII while attempting to create a synthetic rubber substitute, 2 chemicals were mixed together FOR THIS PURPOSE, …but wound up creating what children now play with"Objective flaws can vary with purpose because at the and of the day, we are dealing with "X" until purpose is appliedVarying Objective Flaws If you give a purpose to X (lets say, to be a 2) then the objective answer to 2+2 is 4. Now lets say someone comes along and says he wants to apply a different purpose to X (lets say, to be a 3) then there is still an objective answer, 3+3 is always 6. Now imagine that X is an object, if you apply purpose to the object (giving it a number in the anology) and something doesn't add up (3+3=5) then you know there is an objective flaw present. Therefore, even if the purpose changes in something all that would be doing is changing the objective way it should add up, and if it doesn't add up exactly the way it should, then there is an objective flaw not based on opinion due to the purpose applied.If the purpose for said something changes all that would be doing is changing the objective flaws regarding said thing due to filling the variables with specifics. Correct math is objective."Liver Example ...but if one does not need the human body to function and would not mind dying then what is flawed about a dysfunctional liver?"Why would it matter if they need it to function or not? I explained that human thought doesn't manipulateset purposes, so I'm curious as to whether my opponent skipped through that part or not. The point is liver problems are a scientifically objective defect:http://www.massgeneral.org......And according to one of the definitions I provided a defect is a flaw. Therefore, scientifically objective defects must be objective flaws "Ecosystem Example ..What if I said that I don’t mind if species die, a flawed ecosystem is one that does not have turtles"You would be wrong. Just like a liver, an ecosytem functions whether we want it to or not. If the liver/ ecosystem loses it's ability to function to the best of it's abilities then there is an objective scientific flaw present regardless of human thought or opinion. http://www.guardian.co.uk...Conclusions:1) Premise 1 [P1] of my logical argument is either flawless, or has flaws 2) If Premise 1 is flawless, then it is 100% logically sound 3) If my opponent believes Premise 1 is flawed, then according to his own logic, his belief is not based on anythingfactual or true and therefore Premise 1 remains unrefuted because he would just be stating opinions.4) If Con believes that the flaws in Premise 1 are flaws based on facts and truth, then he conceds that flaws can be objective and this would contradict his claim that flaws are soley subjective5) When purposes change, so do the objective flaws (like re-filling the value of x)6) Flaws with set purpose/ functionality are objective flaws not manipulated by humans 7) Con didn't refute Premise 2 of my argument so it stands in this debate 8) Subjective flaws do exist, but flaws are mostly [P2] objective due to purpose/ functionality Sources (Re-hashed):[1]http://www.massgeneral.org... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk...