The Instigator
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Circumcision without absolute medical necesity is genital mutilation and should be banned:

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 6 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,078 times Debate No: 101019
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (153)
Votes (6)

 

TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Standard resolution- I am just going to copy paste from a previous debate- the circumcision, or any other form of genital cutting, of anyone under the age of 18, unless out of absolute medical necessity, is genital mutilation, and should be banned.Alright, so I've talked about this before, my whole life is not about penises if you were wondering, but I found this debate in which you defended this barbaric practise, and so- were going to talk about it. Again- oh well, let's get this nightmare over with. I can't believe I have to have a huge debate to show how holding down a baby and slicing off half of his erogenous tissue is wrong, and should be illegal.
Jonbonbon

Con

Welp, as evidenced by the fact that I accepted this debate, I do indeed accept this debate.

I hope you prove to be a better opponent than the last time I debated this with someone.

Let's have some fun (because we hopefully realize that this debate is not going to influence the world in any significant way).

Anyway, hit me with your best, mon ami.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Actually debates and discussions such as these will have an effect on the world. Here is a video explaining:
https://www.youtube.com...

Now let's move on to debating the issue:
The resolution consists in 2 points which I must now prove- first, that circumcision is genital mutilation, and second, that it should be banned.

I. THAT CIRCUMCISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION
Genital Mutilation is defined as: {1}
"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs"
Circumcision is defined as:
"To remove the prepuce of a male."
Circumcision refers to the removal of part of the genital organs, which fits the definition of genital mutilation- thus fulfilling my first burden of proof.

2. THAT CIRCUMCISION ON MINORS SHOULD BE BANNED
Title 18 Section 116, United States Code, prohibits the removal of any part of the genitalia of a female who is under the age of 18, save out of absolute medical necessity, and only permitted to be done by a licensed practitioner. Though this law only explicitly prohibits the mutilation of female genitalia, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the Law to all citizens of the United States, men and women. Therefore, male circumcision should be illegal- as to keep it legal is a violation of the 14th Amendment. {3}

{1}. http://www.dictionary.com...
{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...
{3}. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for that well thought out argument.

This is actually going to be fun to debate.

I'm going to clarify what I'm going to be covering: I'm going to go over why laws may be different for different people and why that applies in this case.

Now let's begin:

I will concede that we can consider circumcision a type of mutilation. However, I would caution you not to take this mutilation the same as you would take it in a different context. This mutilation is a healthy flick of the knife at an insignificant part of the body, not filleting someone's skin off and exposing their organs while they're still alive.

So yes, it's mutilation. No, it's not a big deal. Now onto the law part.

Law:

We start with law. My opponent has not twisted any of the laws in any way, but as my business law professor always said, "the law is all kinds of grey." Why might he say this? Well we have several examples.

Good Samaritan Laws:

"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated." [1]

This law, however, does not protect all helping. Law is based on the reasonable person standard (in fact, this definition includes that in it). So in a situation where a reasonable person can expect someone will die if you don't help them, then you are protected in helping them. However, if a reasonable person could see everything going perfectly fine if you just wait for the ambulance, then you are not protected.

You can be sued if you try to move someone and cause them to bleed more than they would've if they just continued lying down. The same law applies differently to different situations.

Maternity leave:

This law is going to be pretty close to what we're talking about. First of all, only women get maternity leave. Even if a man were to adopt a child and become a single father, he would not have paternity leave according to US law. [2] This is because he actively went into this decision as a man knowing that he would not be given leave, and he was free to choose either way.

So why are women given maternity leave in the same situation? Well, women are protected under the law for having babies or adopting babies in order to encourage procreation and the continuation of America through children. This is what we, in law, call "significant interest" or "compelling interest." This means that the government has a significant reason to mandate something, even if it seemingly violates other parts of law, the government has the right to do that. [3]

For example, the government allows campaigning for public office by putting out paper fliers. Conversely, the government does not allow you to post these pictures on street signs. The government has a significant interest to make sure people don't kill each other at an intersection.

Another example is that if the police pull you over, they don't have the right to search your car without a warrant. Unless, they see an AR-15 on the passengers seat, a bag of money covered in blood in the back seat, and a blunt hanging out of your mouth. He may have been pulling you over because you didn't use your turn signal, but now he has the right to search you to see if he can figure out how many people you killed for that money.

That's an extreme example, but it gets the point across. In some situations you are protected, and in some situations you're not. The same law applies differently to different people.

Why is it different in this case?

Well, what's the difference between baby males and baby females?

Can I just copy and paste the thing from my last debate where I outline all the health risks a man obtains if he's not circumcised a few days after being born versus how women literally have no benefit from being circumcised at all?

No, that's probably not ethical. In case, you're a judge reading this, that part that I just explained above is what I'm about to prove in 6,000 characters or less for the next hour because we need to be reminded of the evidence pertaining to health risks and why scientists believe males should be circumcised (it's as highly recommended as a vaccination). If you really want, just skim through the titles or whatever I end up doing here.

Health Benefits of Circumcision:

"The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure." [4]

Consequences of a Reduction in Circumcision:

"One cost-benefit analysis that considered infant urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases found that if circumcision rates were decreased to the 10 percent typical in European countries, the additional direct medical costs over 10 years of births would be more than $4.4 billion." [4]

So what all that says is basically that the male and female populations are significantly healthier by males getting circumcised. Any small bleeding or anything that happens is virtually inconsequential. In fact, the study basically says there are almost no negative consequences to circumcision, but there are multiple health benefits. This is why the scientific community still recommends circumcision.

Why not just have the men get circumcised at 18 if it's that dangerous?

Well, all of these health problems are a problem for 18 years, especially in the early years when children are more susceptible to diseases.

Then it becomes more complicated the older you get. This website has a huge list of things that you have to do as an adult male getting a circumcision to take care of your penis as opposed to the standard wrap and heal for a week that you do with a baby [6] WARNING - this website has a cartoon picture of a penis for the purpose of study. If that offends you or you're in class or whatever, do not click this link.

Again, we have another source that says specifically that adult male circumcision is literally 10 times more risky than circumcision as a baby, which means that now it's actually risky. [7]

The procedure isn't guaranteed by any means to cause complications as an adult, but the recovery is much longer (typically 1-3 months of recovery time before a man can go back to normal activities). Again, it's just much easier to get the procedure done as a baby.

Do females need to be circumcised?

No. [5]

There's not much to say. Women don't have the same problems as men in that area. They don't need to be circumcised. In fact, it causes numerous long-term complications such as urinary problems, problems having sex (because of the scar tissue), painful and prolonged menstrual periods, and it can even open a hole between the urinary tract and the vagina. Nothing about that is good (this all comes from the [5] source by the way).

The Conclusion:

The law protects differently for different situations. Men and women have completely different situations. Females should be protected by a law, because it's a terrible idea. However, with males, it's a good decision, and before the child is 18, the parents have authority to make the medical decision, especially if it acts in the good health of the baby.

I hope I've done enough to prove this to you. I see where my opponent is coming from with the law-first attitude, but the law is always subject to the situation, which means our debate must include what the difference in situations is.

Also, I sort of apologize for my lax speaking style throughout this debate, but it doesn't change the facts. I've just heard it's easier to read my rounds when I'm speaking as I do normally as opposed to when I'm attempting to be all formal.


Sources:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.hrlegalist.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://mobile.nytimes.com...
[5] https://www.womenshealth.gov...
[6] Warning again - the first thing you will see is a cartoon picture of a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis https://myhealth.alberta.ca...
[7] http://www.circinfo.net...

Debate Round No. 2
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Right off the bat my opponent's response makes a number of false claims and petty excuses for genital mutilation. She says 'this mutilation is a healthy flick of the knife at an insignificant part of the body, not filleting someone's skin off and exposing their organs while they're still alive.' This is just flat out wrong for the following reasons:
1. The foreskin is not an 'insignificant part of the body,' circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the male genitalia. {1}
2. Circumcision does fillet someone's skin off, (foreskin) and expose their organs while they are still alive, (the glans, which were never supposed to be an external organ).

Now that we have addressed her introduction, let's move on to the rest of her response.

I. 'BUT THERE ARE HEALTH BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION!'
This is less an argument and more a poor rationalization- and let me explain why. First of all, my opponent is trying to use this argument as a reason for why Male Genital Mutilation is somehow or another different from Female Genital Mutilation, and therefore the laws can protect women from this savagery, but leave men unprotected. However, Muslims claim that there are benefits to FGM, {2} and yet we do not permit this practise on account of these claims.

Second of all, it is an after the fact rationalization. When circumcision was introduced into the US, it was not introduced for the purpose of achieving these 'health benefits,' you so talk about, it was introduced for the purpose of reducing sexual pleasure, and thereby discouraging masturbation. {3} This justification continued until about the early 2000's when people began questioning why they were circumcising in the first place- so these 'studies' came out to explain why this makes sense. I don't do after the fact rationalizations.

Third of all, these so-called health benefits have been refuted numerous times. {4} In fact, the Royal Dutch Medical Association recently came out against the practise of MGM, and said:
"There are no compelling health arguments in favor of circumcision, while it can have serious long-term urological, psychological and sexual consequences. And performing medically unwarranted circumcision of underage boys conflicts with good medical practice. Male infant circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and the doctors’ oath not to do harm." {5}

II. 'CONSEQUENCES OF A REDUCTION IN CIRCUMCISION:'
My opponent claims that reducing circumcision rates from100% to just 10% would cost 4.4 billion over a span of 10 years. Well let's do the math shall we folks? According to the CDC, 4 million babies wee born in the US in 2010. {6} Assuming half of those are male, and accounting for the same 10 year span my opponent is using. We are performing a total of 20 million circumcisions t save 4.4 Billion, whilst at the average cost of a child circumcision is 850$, {7} meaning that we are spending 17 Billion on circumcisions enable to save just 4.4 Billion. That is NOT cost effective, and actually means that we would spend less money on treating the 'diseases' caused by not mutilating your children than we would circumcising them- even assuming that these health benefits are legitimate, whilst they are not.


III. 'WOMEN DON'T NEED TO GET CIRCUMCISED!'
My opinion here is the same as is with the draft- no one should be drafted, but for so as long as men are subject to the draft, women should be subject to the draft as well. My opponent claims that FGM causes 'urinary tract infections' and 'problems having sex,' both of which are also true with MGM- circumcised men are 4.5 times as likely to suffer from ED. {8}

{1}. http://www.livescience.com...
{2}. https://islamqa.info...
{3}. http://www.museumofquackery.com...
{4}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
{5}. https://www.knmg.nl...
{6}. https://www.nichd.nih.gov...
{7}. http://health.costhelper.com...
{8}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Jonbonbon

Con

I apologize for my statement at the beginning. I do know that a penis is technically an organ and the glans is technically the skin around it. I was referring to a practice whereby you skin an entire human's body and keep going until they die of massive blood loss, but I was trying to tone it down. Now, you've gotten me saying all that gross crap. Happy now?

Now let's get into the meat of it. Or whatever meat there was. You'll see what I mean.

After-the-fact rationalizations:

Whether or not it is one is inconsequential. My opponent does say that he doesn't do after-the-fact rationalizations, but he makes the mistake of discounting possibly correct information before getting to it. The fact that someone made a decision for the wrong reason doesn't actually mean the decision itself wasn't something one could also choose for the right reasons. In other words, things can be good without taking into consideration the intent of the doer (it doesn't always make the doer good, but the thing itself can be good).

Additionally, my opponent feels the need to prove that we originally used circumcision to reduce sexual pleasure. Why is that? Because no one knew that until he said it. So none of us had the original intent in mind (well not many of us anyway). We just did studies to decide whether or not it was good, and we decided that it was.

That dovetails nicely into my next point.


The evidence that conflicts:

My opponent has cited an abstract for something that's 20 pages long, and I as the opponent shouldn't be required to read through all of that to find out where the justification is. My opponent should have cited all of the necessary information during his round.

Either way, guess what? I skimmed it to find research. Turns out, half of their claim for a need for new evidence was from an organization that has, since the original claim in 1999, decided that the benefits of circumcision outweigh any the minuscule risks [1]. Either way, I didn't find any actual data in there.

This is the important thing: I cited a study, and my opponent cited the opinions of physicians. I have no idea if these physicians have done the studies to know what they're talking about, or if the procedures in other countries are generally more dangerous because they typically don't perform circumcisions. In fact, the whole thing could be completely irrelevant. I wouldn't know because I can only read the two paragraphs written in English, and there's no apparent data on it.

However, I feel I can safely make the assumption that because doctors in other countries don't typically perform circumcisions, they are more dangerous abroad because the doctors have less experience, whereas in America all of the evidence points toward circumcisions being an entirely safe procedure with numerous health benefits and almost no risk (there's no such thing as something that's risk-free by the way).

(We are talking about America by the way. My opponent started with American law, so we're debating in the context of America. Just wanted everyone to know that).

This is the important part of everything that I said: I cited a report on a study, and my opponent cited a report on a consensus of opinions. Studies weigh more than words.

In fact, the study concluded the exact opposite thing the Dutch concluded.

Cost:

Now we get into some fun information. We're going to analyze all kinds of cost principles and things of the sort.

Did anyone click on that link {7} on my opponent's side? I did, and I put it at as my source [2]. I found some pretty interesting information. Apparently a circumcision costs a maximum of $50 for someone who's on insurance. My opponent is spelling things not-American so I'm not sure if he knows this, but everyone in America is legally required to have health insurance, and it looks like that's not going to change. So he attempted to take the highest number possible for someone who's not on insurance and incorrectly use that as the base cost. [2]

So circumcisions in America cost between $0 and $50 according to my opponent's evidence. And we are talking about America if we start with citing American law. So now going on this cost basis the actual cost over 10 years to have circumcisions at max cost every single time is $1,000,000,000 or $1 billion.

$4.4 billion > $1 billion

So yes, it is actually way more cost effective to have circumcisions at birth than to treat the diseases that follow.

My opponent actually attempted to twist his evidence toward his side, when the reality of it falls to my side. Keep that in mind, readers.

That last bit there at the end:

So we're in agreement that women don't need to be circumcised. So that's a plus. So far in this debate, my opponent hasn't actually proven anything about health consequences regarding circumcision. I mean, I know tons of circumcised guys who had no problem using their penises – but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, my opponent cites a source that says circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure (and I thought, finally, a statistic), so I looked for the statistic in the source, and I found it, and I found where the statistic originally came from (because that article was an FAQ citing other things), and I found out that the text couldn't actually be accessed.

So I looked it up, and I found scientist who decided the study was flawed because the way they tested it wasn't likely to produce accurate results, and it wasn't taken from a sample that could accurately produce results. [3]

Let me give you the specifics:

The sample was taken from Belgian men. Belgian men tend to only get circumcisions for medical purposes, which means their penises likely had something wrong with them to begin with. The sample becomes immediately tainted and unable to provide accurate results. [3]

Further, the tests showed that the actual pleasure difference was there, but it was negligible. You can read the rest if you want, but those are the important parts. [3]

As for the testing methods, they used questions to rate pleasure, and they used exceptionally wordy questions. Wordy questions are more likely to produce answers outside the realm of fact. [3]

Dropped points:

Don't think I didn't notice.

I see you.

My opponent has thus conceded that adult circumcisions are more complicated than baby circumcisions. This is also evidenced in the cost website (thanks for that by the way. I've never had such a helpful opponent). The cost for the baby without insurance was $850, but the cost for an adult was a minimum of $1,500, but it could get up to $3,000.

Cost in medicine often denotes the difficulty level.

My opponent has also conceded that the law applies differently for different situations. In other words, we cannot blanket laws over the entire US. They do mold to fit different situations.

Sources:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[1] health.costhelper.com/circumcision.html
[2] http://www.livescience.com...

Debate Round No. 3
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

RESPONSE:
I. AFTER THE FACT RATIONALIZATIONS:
You misunderstood my argument- you cannot do something for a reason that is unacceptable for over 140 years, then when people begin to question it, come up with an after the fact rationalization. If 100 years from now a study came out claiming that FGM was beneficial- this would not change the barbaric nature of cutting someone's genitals without their consent.

II. COST:
No- that is the average cost of a circumcision before insurance. But regardless, the total resources expended per circumcision amount to 850$. That only 50$ of this is paid by the parents is really irrelevant, because we are judging the total resources used in either method- of amputation or of treatment, enable to see which method is most efficient. This means that we must account for the whole cost of circumcision procedures, which show that the costs of circumcision do not justify the suppose health benefits.

III. PLEASURE:
You cannot claim that cutting off the most sensitive parts of a persons genitals doesn't reduce sensitivity. The foreskin is by no doubt sensitive, and so circumcision destroys sensitivity by definition. There is no way around this- and all the studies in the world couldn't prove this otherwise. It's like claiming that foot binding does not affect women's ability to walk, then releasing a study to 'confirm' this. No one would believe them and rightly so.

IV. HEALTH BENEFITS:
The claims of health benefits as some kind of a justification for circumcision are inherently absurd. Even assuming that these health benefits were real- I can find no logical way to say that preemptive amputation is an acceptable means of disease prevention. In no other circumstance would this be acceptable, and I'll give you an example.

It could be claimed that teeth are nothing but a health hazard. Almost everyone with them are going to get cavities, and dentures are easier to clean- so by this same logic we should rip out all of our children's teeth and replace them with dentures. Apparently, however, this is illegal.

Better yet- if you want the cure for every disease ever to threaten mankind- why don't we practise Routine Infant Euthanasia (RIE)? Studies have shown that death reduces a persons chances of contracting HIV by 100%- which certainly outdoes circumcision. Not only that, but death reduces your chances of catching an STD, of getting any form of cancer, or of contracting a UTI by 100% as well! Death is far more effective at disease prevention than circumcision, and it's cheaper too. I'm not sure how much a bullet costs, but I'm pretty sure it's below 850$, or even 50$.

My opponent may see this analogy as absurd- but truth be told, if it is acceptable to infringe a persons right to bodily autonomy to 'spare them' all these horrible diseases- where does that logic stop? At what point in the application of this logic are the human rights violations no longer acceptable?

FINAL ARGUMENT:
Seeing as though this is my last round, I think it is best for me to wrap up my case and add more reasoning for my position.

The resolution is that circumcision is genital mutilation, and should be banned. My opponent has not responded to the first part and has admitted that it is true. So she has attempted to show that circumcision, though genital mutilation, should not be banned. This debate, fundamentally, deals in morality and ethics, as opposed to pragmatism, or 'what may be best.' For this reason, I will attack my opponents stance at a very different angle.

I. THE JUSTIFICATIONS:
My opponent claims that circumcision should not be banned like with FGM because it has health benefits. However, she is yet to show how this has any effect upon the morality of circumcision. The Nazis, for example, sought to eliminate all genetic defects enable to create a healthier people.

It is almost undeniable that genociding everyone with unfavorable genetics would improve public health by reducing substantially the chances of someone having such diseases. Yet this was no justification- because it violated human rights. It seems that all of my opponents arguments for the moral acceptability of circumcision are based on the idea that the ends justify the means. For this reason, I will be attacking her argument from a new angle- Libertarianism.

II. PROPERTY RIGHTS:
Circumcision violates property rights- the foreskin is after all the babies property, and so cutting it off and destroying it violates that babies right to property- but not even just his property- the most sacred form of property- his body. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
'Due process' means that the individual concerned has to be tried with a valid crime, in a court of law, and given punishment accordingly. This requirement is not fulfilled in the case of circumcision- and property rights are the basis of all human rights. {1}

III. CONSENT:
The minimum age of consent requirement in the United States is 16, {2} this means that a baby is legally incapable of consenting to circumcision. Instead, parents are enabled to consent 'as a proxy' on the child's behalf. This is not consent, at best it is paternalism, something completely unacceptable in any free society, but abhorrent when it comes to the cutting off of healthy parts of a persons genitals.

As a baby cannot consent to a circumcision, and non-therapeutic circumcision is at best preemptive amputation, something that doctors will normally refuse to do, let alone on an unconsenting minor- circumcision is a blatant violation of the laws regarding consent in this nation.

CONCLUSION:
After this debate, I still can see no justification whatsoever for cutting off the most sensitive parts of a persons genitals. This is a blatant violation of property rights, the Non-Aggression Principle, and the Hippocratic Oath. Furthermore I have already shown how circumcision violates US Law (The FGM Act of 1996 and the 14th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and Age of Consent Laws), and have thereby fulfilled the second part of my burden of proof.

{1}. https://mises.org...
{2}. http://www.legalmatch.com...
Jonbonbon

Con

I'm going to break this debate into the important parts.

Evidence:

Or lack thereof.

My opponents response to my quantifiable evidence was the debate equivalent of saying "nuh-uh." Why might my opponent feel the need to oppose my evidence with unrealistic analogies or arguments not grounded in research? Perhaps because the evidence points to my side.

He also exaggerated some of my points. For example, I never said that circumcision doesn't reduce pleasure. I said the reduction in pleasure is negligible. Certainly not something that warrants the risks.

He also just denied without evidence that circumcision has benefits. I remind you, he doesn't come forward with data or evidence. Just an opinion. His opinion certainly doesn't outweigh that of people who actually did the studies. This opinion also affects him in a negative way, because now he is unable to argue against other points by fact of having such a strong opinion not based in research.

So here is the point he cannot see:

An increase in circumcisions may decrease overall medical expenses. My opponent assumes that the evidence doesn't work both ways. If we stop having circumcisions, we gain an additional few billion dollars in expenses (it does say additional, which means to add on top of the current status). So what if increasing circumcisions has an overall decrease in medical expenses?

Even still, it looks like the $50 may just be the allowable expense. Most of the expense for a circumcision is a facility fee. It's an imaginary cost that won't actually be reflected in the economy. The insurance is just a leveraging organization that puts a cap on the charge for that, since most insurance companies recognize circumcision as a standard procedure.

Either way, my opponent comes with no substantial evidence on whether or not circumcision reduces medical costs later on, while I come forward saying it does, using multiple sources. So from a basis of research, he doesn't have any ground to stand on.

Law:

My opponent sort of dropped this till the end, but his ultimate conclusion, after picking out whatever parts of law or personal opinion he needed for support, is that circumcision is in blatant violation of US law.

Coming back to reality, circumcision is in no violation of US law. First of all, it's not illegal, so by extension it's not in violation of US law (that's how it works right?). Second of all, males and females are in a different situation, which we can conclude from the preponderance of evidence. Because it is beneficial for males to be circumcised, it makes sense that it would be legal. It is unhealthy for women to be circumcised without medical need. That means that it's reasonable it's illegal for them.

My opponent can't oppose that, because he didn't provide any evidence.

Unreasonable analogies:

Sure, I'll address these. There's no reason they should bear any weight. While my side supports circumcision is medically beneficial for males and is most reasonable to do a few days after birth, my opponent brings up all these other things that have no grounding in any research or even within the consideration set of a reasonable person (remember the reasonable person standard from the beginning). Since a reasonable person can say they would recommend circumcision but not euthanasia for the sake of reducing the chance of a urinary tract infection, we can say that the latter has no place in this debate.

The fact that my opponent used this as an actual argument shows you how desperate he is to cast doubt on my side.

Morality:

So I assumed we were working with morality based in law, because of the beginning, but apparently we're not.

Actually, my opponent never established a moral system other than through law or the right of personal property?

I'm not sure. It was never clear what actually makes something morally good. That's why I've been advocating from a utilitarian standpoint. It's the most common way to determine when something is right in non-philosophy based debates (this debate I am not philosophy based because we never discussed a specific philosophy). Anyway, utilitarianism basically just says that something is right if it has a net benefit.

So yes, the fact hat circumcision has a net benefit does make it morally right. I'm not going to go into depth on utilitarianism and why it's the favorable position. Quite honestly, my opponent started an entirely new debate in the last round, which is often revered as rude or illegal. But in my case, it just shows you something. My opponent has not kept constant on much throughout the debate. I have had a simple conclusion from simple research throughout all my arguments. The benefits outweigh the costs.

The only cost my opponent names specifically is an infringement of private property. This is only perceived, as under US law it is not, and honestly, it's only a big deal if you make it one. There are zero consequences other than a perceived violation of property, and I think that's really what my opponent cares about. But the practice is so commonplace that it's considered as standard a procedure as vaccinations for the sake of giving that male a healthier life.

So because my side is actually supported by evidence and seems to have a net benefit, we can reasonably conclude that my opponent did not fulfill his burden of proof. A burden of proof requires actually proving something, and proving something means backing it up with evidence or solid reasoning.

Summary:

Benefits:
I substantiated my claims, and my opponent did not.

Law:
My opponent's argument comes primarily from opinion, but my analysis of the law remains unchallenged.

Cost:
My opponent isn't really concerned with cost, he's just debating me every way he can. So if I win it great, and if you agree with him, it's not really part of his main concern anyway.

Morality:
My opponent argues from some well-known standpoints, but I gave a metric with a coherent philosophy that agrees with the law, the scientific community, and the majority of America.

Facts:
My opponent did not prove my side to be non-factual, but I did prove my opponent's side to be non-factual. The evidence weighs far more heavily on my side.

That's what really matters in the end, and it looks like my opponent just didn't do the research he needed to do. Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
153 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
Lol @ whoever reported my vote...

hahahahaahahahaahhaa
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
I didn't even begin work on my website yet, maybe you're talking about a few paragraphs?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol I looked at your website. I don't disagree with your view on the market, but you look like a child throwing a tantrum at people. Even when given a practically infinite amount of time to do research and write a well-thought out argument that actually connects to the other side and then leads them to the same conclusion as you, you still just rant and throw fists at other people.

I don't know what I expected from you. If you can't even have the dignity to write a proper argument on your own website, you're not going to shape up your conversation over here. So essentially, you've topped out, and you've hardly touched my arguments. I'm not going to keep trying to reason with someone so unreasonable.

Have a good life.

https://m.popkey.co...
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
The resolution was that circumcision was henital mutilation and should be banned, you conceded it was genital mutilation, I cited equal justice under law to show that it should be banned, and your response was not convincing.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
They are not false equivalencies.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol you mean the evidence from the formal debate we had a few days ago?
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
The false equivilancies are strong with this one lol. Firs Nazi Germany, now slavery.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
What evidence did you give?
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 1 year ago
TheMarketLibertarian
What evidence did you give?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol all I'm asking for is solid evidence that refutes my solid evidence. Right now you're doing the thing that toddlers do when they don't get what they want. Drop a pair, and give me something more than baseless assertions.

You're so easy to push over. I mean:

1. Your argument will be ignored until you provide evidence that my evidence is false. Until then I will consider your beliefs to be as imaginary as you consider my God.
2. You're presenting a false dichotomy to justify yourself. You're so full of logical fallacies that it's actually quite distressing that you consider yourself better than me.
3. Their rights actually are different, but apparently you don't understand how the law works. And you also refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, which is sad because you could stand to learn a lot from people. Especially at your age. You should be trying to make yourself better not scream at everyone who doesn't give you what you want.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Now that all the vote bombing is done and my cvb is gone, I'll post my actual RFD in TLDR form. Pro offered no affirmative case until the last round where Con could not respond to it as her last round was a summary. He made a lot of false and bad analogies correlation circumcision to the holocaust and nazi war crimes. Since con had no affirmative case, he basically put himself in a hole. He would have to refute every one of cons arguments and even if he managed to do that, there is no case affirming the change in the status quo. He basically set himself up for a loss by how we worded the res. I would offer more but it would just be telling pro how to improve, which I don't want to waste time doing. With no affirmative case or reason to change the status quo coupled with the fact she had viable reasons to allow circumcision due to health benefits ( cleanliness, reduced stfds, etc) this is a clear con win. Also Pro needs to stop having retards vote bomb
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that circumcision results in a loss of pleasure and is a violation of property rights. Pro used the pleasure argument effectively, but his property argument left much to be desired. Pro first creates a false equivilency between circumcision and Nazi war crimes without justifying why. He also attempts to justify parents not being able to circumcise their child using legislation (14th Amendment) that restricts the abilities of the *government,* not *the people.* There is a major difference between the two that Pro takes for granted. Pro also attempts to justify his stance with the NAP, but 1) does not show why the NAP ought to be a part of the moral standard, adn 2) is justifying that property rights come from the NAP becuase NAP. The math was funky; too many assumptions made by both sides in order for either of their assertions to stand. Con showed the differences between MGM and FGM, and effectively argued the point regardling later complications. Overall, Con win.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This focused on "should [circumcision] be banned". Pro's relevant points here were loss of pleasure and property rights. The pleasure arg. held (the source saying the most sensitive parts of the penis were removed by circ. was good); the prop. rights arg. was too little, too late. P. should have focused on rights earlier; he instead made a lot of illogical comparisons (e.g. comparing circumcision to Nazi war crimes). Law arg. misinterpreted 14th amendment; "treat like cases alike" doesn't mean "treat unlike cases alike", and Con showed relevant diffs btw MGM and FGM. Con showed benefit of male circ. thru reduction of late complications. Both sides fumbled with econ. math that wasn't very good, and I'm not sure why it matters when parents choose to do the operation, but the complications point stands. C. also showed the effects of circ. on sexual pleasure were minimal. In the end, I must weigh minimal pleasure loss against some preventative medication. Con pretty clearly wins.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
TheMarketLibertarianJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments