The Instigator
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Sinque
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Circumcision on minors without medical necessity is mutilation and should be banned:

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
TheMarketLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 100315
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

The resolution is that the circumcision of a minor unless out of medical necessity is genital mutilation and should be banned. Definitions:

Genital Mutilation:
"The removal of all or part of the genital organs."
Circumcision:
"The removal of the foreskin. (part of the genital organs)"
Sinque

Con

I accept.

My argument is that since it does no serious harm, it should be free.

I will not be arguing for religion or tradition.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Cutting off half of a persons genitilia and destroying 75% of their ability to feel pleasure sounds like harm to me.
Sinque

Con

I am sorry for taking so long on this argument, I have multiple going on right now and some homework. It doesn’t help that the research is inconsistent at best. First of all, your statistics are wildly incorrect. You aren’t removing 75% of a male’s ability to have pleasure. Here some statistics: I want to point out there are many studies that claim that it does reduce pleasure and many others that claim it doesn’t. There are two problems with individual studies. First, the studies often don’t contain enough men to make it a trustworthy source. Second, studies often don’t have successful ways of interpreting pleasure, e.g. asking men how pleasurable it was between 1-5. Circumcision does not disrupt anything to the genitalia except removing the foreskin. This fact is less controversial, and I will be accepting it as the truth in my argument. The best way to figure out what part of the genitalia is the most sensitive is nerve ending density, but sadly this statistic seems impossible to find conclusively. The two most suggest places are the gland and foreskin. These two places are both effected by circumcision, although differently. While the foreskin is cut off, the glands are right behind it and for that reason, I would say removing the foreskin doesn’t do as much. The problem seems to be that the glands are desensitized. How much? Ignoring somehow protecting the glands (for example one day genetic modification may make it possible), so far the internet has refused to tell me, but looking around, I’d say it removes pleasure of that tip of the genitalia to a pretty large extent. Of course, the rest of the genitalia will be unaffected. Other parts of it have very near sensitivities. That was some disturbing research. The biggest problem with saying circumcision does lots of harm is that it doesn’t. First, removing pleasure isn’t the same as doing damage. It isn’t cutting off someone’s arm. Second, it doesn’t affect someone so much, like a missing arm. Someone that has sex and masturbate A LOT throughout their lifetime might spend an average of 30 minutes of meaniful time a day doing it. That is A LOT, considering that is an entire lifetime, childhood and being old included. As a guess, that is about the top 1% of guys. As a choice allowing person, it seems reasonable for someone to decide if they want it or not. I should be able to have myself circumcised if I want. Besides being a bit unreasonable to completely ban it, the best possible solutions is allowing males to choose if they want it or not.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Thank you for conceding this debate.
Sinque

Con

I didn't 'concede', I clearly wrote that it shouldn't be banned. If you mean I conceded by the badness of my argument, I am not insulted.
Debate Round No. 3
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

From Round 2:
"the best possible solutions is allowing males to choose if they want it or not."
The resolution was:
"Circumcision on minors without medical necessity is mutilation and should be banned."
Therefore you conceded that men should not be forcibly mutilated at birth.
Sinque

Con

I didn't concede because your argument is that it should be banned. I am arguing that banning it is crazy.
Debate Round No. 4
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

My argument was that you shouldn't be able to forcibly mutilate your children- that's not crazy.
Sinque

Con

It seems you changed your argument then. You originally wrote 'circumcision of a minor unless out of medical necessity is genital mutilation and should be banned'. I argued that it should not be banned. I am against circumcision, but I am disagreeing with your idea of banning it.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
Huh? You should go back and read them again.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
They are bull because they are addressing something unrelated.
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
These studies are not bull, they took thousands of men into account. You want to debate but then throw a tantrum when things don't go your way.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
It's not a lie, it's fact. Your studies are bullsh*t
Posted by Tinkle888 1 year ago
Tinkle888
"75% of their ability to feel pleasure sounds like harm to me."

Why do you spread lies? Do you have evidence for what you just said?
Posted by Sinque 1 year ago
Sinque
Oops sorry for the bad paragraph spacing. I copy pasted it in from Microsoft Word and the formatting got destroyed. :\
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
Hmm
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 1 year ago
Theguy1789
TheMarketLibertarianSinqueTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how Circumcision fits the definition of genital mutilation, and Con conceded that it should be left to the person being circumcised. I vote pro.