The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Circumcision doesn't prevent any disease or infection

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 89610
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Circumcision is not only about foreskin, it's also about consent. Removing healthy tissue from a person's body without his oral or written consent is a violation of fundamental medical ethical principles unless there's any medical necessity.

WHO said that circumcision prevents HIV by 60%. Sorry, 60% means? They compared a nation's past and present HIV rates after practicing circumcision for a period of time. They found a 60% decrease in HIV rate. They said that circumcision prevents HIV up to 60%. What a stupid statement it is! Maybe HIV rate dropped for few other reasons like public awareness and increase of condom use. It has nothing to do with circumcision. If you want to test effectiveness of circumcision in HIV preventation, you have to compare HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised people. But WHO neither did that nor they are interested to do that.

HIV virus can reach your blood either via an open cut or mucus membrane. Mucus membrane exists i mouth, eye, nose, urethra, vagaina etc. When you have sex with an infected girl, vagainal fluid get into your urethra, virus take entry via mucus membrane and you have to way to prevent it without a condom.

Circumcision promoters say that foreskin traps vagainal fluid and it increases the risk of catching HIV.

But they don't know that foreskin is not the easiest entry point for HIV virus. Foreskin has langerhans cells those produce langerin, a great natural antiseptic effective against any germ. Latest research shows that Langerin makes a trap to kill HIV 1 virus. Langerin has an effective and important role to prevent HIV infections and HIV virus can only infect a foreskin when there's a high viral load. So when you have a foreskin, you have the natural protection and it may help prevent HIV.
Reference: Read the wikipedia article Foreskin and you will found a list of bunch of functions it have, including functions of langerin and necessary citations of informations.

Once you are circumcised, you don't have the natural protection anymore and HIV virus will find it's easiest entry point- "Urethra". If you're circumcised, vagainal fluid directly get into your urethra during intercourse and you have no way to prevent it without a condom. And urethra is reportedly the easiest entry point for HIV and foreskin is relatively harder.
A circumcised penis causes more friction during intercourse leading to open cuts and sometimes bleeding those are easier entry point for HIV virus.

Several research done among US Navy, Millitary, Airforce professionals show that there's no difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised population.
This is they way to research and this is called a research. The research done by WHO doesn't make any sense.
Several other research show that circumcision may increase the risk of HIV transmission in Africa. They interviewed many African males and many of them believe that they no longer need condom as long as they have been already circumcised. What?

About penile cancer, it happens to 1 in every 100000 men. So it is surely out of any consideration. But let's disscuss about it. Stupid researchers made these stupid statement that circumcision help prevents penile cancer when done on infancy. Adult circumcision may increase the risk of penile cancer instead. These statements don't make any sense. They are saying it based on the statistics, where a statistics will not bring perfect result for such rear medical conditions. Penile cancer can happen for some other reasons like HPV infection, the virus responsible for cervix cancer. How can we say that foreskin is somehow related to penile cancer. The researchers don't have any logical point on it. Circumcision promoters replied that smegma produced by foreskin may cause inflamation and irritation that may trigger cancer. In past, it was thought that smegma is a direct reason of penile cancer, but now it is proven to be incorrect. Circumcision promoters said that the reason foreskin causes penile cancer is unclear. So this statement indicates that foreskin has nothing to do with penile cancer. Other factors like HPV infection can trigger it.
About STI, including HPV, an uncircumcised man is no more likely to get STI or HPV as long as he has a natural protection by Langerin. About HPV, it spreads from skin to skin contact, even if you use condom you can still get it in the area not covered by condom. So it's a totally stupid statement that circumcision may prevent HPV.

About UTI, its unusual and unlikely for a normal uncircumcised boy to get it in normal condition as he has natural protection. 70% of world population is uncircumcised and reportedly there's no difference in UTI rates among circumcised and uncircumcised.
You may develop some bacterial infection only in warzone or remote areas where there's not much water for taking shower and critical weather for survibal.
If for any reason in an uncommon case an uncut boy get bacterial infection it, can be treated easily.


Thank you PRO for making the debate.


PRO is correct when he claims that the WHO states that circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 60%[1]. However that's all he's right about, with his criticism of these findings being nothing but a strawman which shows he hasn't even looked at the studies these are based on.

He states "They compared a nation's past and present HIV rates after practicing circumcision for a period of time" and reasons that this therefore has the flaw that other factors could have influenced the results.

The problem here is that these criticisms have no relation to the studies that were conducted. All three studies [2][3][4] were run based on of the formation of two almost identical groups - a control group that has no circumcision and an intervention group that recieved circumcision - and comparisons between the two at the same points in time. It was not comparing past to present, but comparing one present group to another present group with the variable between the two being circumcision or lack thereof. If there is a sudden change in some other factor of HIV prevelance, like increased condom use, it doesn't matter because they're both being measured in the present and so will be effected equally be it.

PRO's criticisms are therefore invalid and the results of these studies should stand. As the clear weight of evidence is on my side and PRO has misrepresented the evidence, I believe this is a key indicator based on scientific studies that circumcision prevent HIV infection.

Furthermore, if we want to get an idea of what the literature at the whole says, then the best thing to do is look at a meta-analysis[5]. As individual studies can be flawed or by sheer chance happen to have non-representative results, meta-analyses are essentially a study of studies, collecting all the individual studies that have been done on a subject and combining their results to give a clear indication of what all the scientific effort points toward.

Fortunately a meta-analysis has been done for HIV and it shows that there is a massive consensus that circumcision does reduce HIV[6]. Now the results of any scientific study, even a meta-analysis, could potentially be down to luck. If your cancer curing drug cures cancer in 1000 out of 1000 patients, then it's almost certain that you've found a drug that cures cancer but it's not actually impossible that it could just be down to luck and 1000 patients just happened to all simultaneously have spontaneous cancer regression.

The standard benchmark for studies is a 95% liklihood of being correct (although for some important ones it can be 99%). If they can meet that then the study is said to meet it's hypothesisis and be statistically significant and the hypothesis scientifically valid. If you don't know your P values, the liklihood of male circumcision providing protection from HIV being very real and not down to chance as given in that meta-analysis is 99.999%. In scientific terms, that's massive and overwhelming evidence.

Unsupported Claims

All of PRO's post is unsupported and unsourced claims. The only difference with the WHO study is that because he gave the organisation it came from and a specific detail of 60%, I was able to track it down myself and show how it was wrong.

As he has provided nothing to support his claims, I don't even know what he is referencing when he says stuff like "Several research done among US Navy, Millitary, Airforce professionals" if indeed such research exists. I am therefore disregarding as unevidenced opinion until PRO backs it up.

Circumcision as a specific treatment

At the start of my post I present the overwhelming scientific consensus that male circumcision prevents HIV. However circumcision can also actually be a surgical procedure for ongoing medical conditions. Phimosis[7] is the inflamation of the penis, causing the head to be unable to come out of the foreskin. As per the NHS, circumcision "can sometimes be the best and only treatment option."

Other preventional benefits

Male circumcision has an array of health benefits. A meta-analysis[8] has found that "circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis". Another found that "circumcision reduces the prevalence of genital HPV infections", with HPV having an association with cancer - thus by proxy causing circumcision to reduce the risk of cancer. [9]

Debate Round No. 1


Notheir1978 forfeited this round.


Pro has FF.

As he has not sourced or explained any of his claims and I believe my R1 statement succintly counters his position, I extend my argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Notheir1978 forfeited this round.


Pro has FF.

As he has not sourced or explained any of his claims and I believe my R1 statement succintly counters his position, I extend my argument.

Additionally I've been able to decipher the logic behind one more of his claims, specifically.

Langerhan Cells

Langerhan cells do help prevent HIV[1]. However Langerhan cells are present in the skin throughout the entire body and are nothing specific to the foreskin[2]. there is no logical reason to beleive that removing the foreskin would increase infection rates. Aside from being contrary to all available evidence and a claim that has never been supported by a single study I can find, regardless of whether there is a foreskin or not the skin cells will still have langerhan cells.

PRO's claims here seem to be based on extrapolating his own wild theory of of studies that he hasn;t fully read or understood, just like the WHO studies mentioned in round 1.

Debate Round No. 3


Notheir1978 forfeited this round.


Haven't been able to track down any actual sources to further decipher PRO's unsupported claims, so will just extend argument.
Debate Round No. 4


Notheir1978 forfeited this round.


Extend arguement.

Please vote for me for:

Sources - I used relevent ones including scientific studies and PRO used none
Conduct - Pro FF almost all rounds
Argument - Were it was possible to find what PRO's vague unsupported claims where talking about, I showed his claims were incorrect and in fact completely wrong, with the science showing that there is a benefit to circumcision with it preventing disease and infection.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF