The Instigator
Eliyahu
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Gloaten
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Male circumcision is a blessing for mankind.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Eliyahu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 63778
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Eliyahu

Pro

Bs'd

Male circumcision is a blessing for mankind. In the past decades it has saved millions of people from a slow, painfull, premature death, and it has the potential to save many millions more.
Gloaten

Con

I wouldn't say male circumcision is a 'blessing'.

The foreskin has been proven to be a sex stimulant and allow for maximum pleasure during intercourse. Many who have gotten circumcisions when they were older have said it was a huge mistake on their part. Sure, it can help prevent disease and such, but you wouldn't even get those diseases if you just kept clean.
Debate Round No. 1
Eliyahu

Pro

Bs'd

Of course the foreskin has no function during intercourse. And nobody who got circumcised later in life says it is a huge mistake. Maybe with the exception of a single mentally disturbed soul.

The literature says that people say that it is an improvement of their sex life, or it makes no difference.

In Uganda thousands of sexually active males have been circumcised for AIDS research, and here is what they say about it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Circumcision Doesn't Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men

January 8, 2008
Source:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Summary:
A study of nearly 4,500 men finds that circumcision does not adversely affect sexual performance and satisfaction. Adult studies have been problematic and contradictory because of highly selective study participants, small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. Satisfaction rates in this study -- which compared circumcised and non-circumcised men -- topped 98 percent.

More than 98 per cent of men who are circumcised can enjoy the same levels of sexual satisfaction and performance as men who are not, according to a study of nearly 4,500 males published in the January issue of the UK-based urology journal BJU International.

The randomised trial, carried out by researchers from Uganda and the USA, was undertaken because previous studies showed that the procedure -- which is now recommended as an efficient way to reduce HIV transmission - showed conflicting results.

"Previous studies have been problematic and shown contradictory results" points out co-author Professor Ronald H Gray from the Bloomberg School of Health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.

"Studies focusing on men circumcised in adulthood were highly selective, because there were medical indications for surgery, circumcised infants can't provide before and after comparisons and in most studies sample sizes were small and follow-up was short.

"This study, carried out as part of an HIV prevention initiative, enabled us to compare two groups of men with the same demographic profiles and levels of sexual satisfaction and performance at the start of the study."

The research team looked at 4,456 sexually experienced Ugandan men aged from 15 to 49 who did not have the HIV virus. 2,210 were randomised to receive circumcision and 2,246 had their circumcision delayed for 24 months.

They followed up both sets of men at six, 12 and 24 months and then compared the information on sexual desire, satisfaction and sexual performance for the circumcised men and the control group.

Their research showed that:

98.6 per cent of the circumcised men reported no problems in penetration, compared with 99.4 per cent of the control group.
99.4 per cent of the circumcised men reported no pain on intercourse, compared with 98.8 per cent of the control group.

Sexual satisfaction was more or less constant in the circumcision group -- 98.5 per cent on enrolment and 98.4 per cent after two years -- but rose slightly from 98 per cent to 99.9 per cent in the control group. This difference was not felt to be clinically significant.

At the six-month visit there was a small, but statistically significant, difference in problems with penetration and pain among the circumcised group, but this was temporary and was not reported at subsequent follow-up visits.

There was considerable consistency between the men in each group when it came to age, religion, marital status, education and number of sexual partners in the last year. The majority of the men were Catholic, married, had one sexual partner and were educated to primary school level.

"Our study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when we compared them with the men who had not yet received surgery" concludes Professor Gray.

"Other studies have already shown that being able to reassure men that the procedure won't affect sexual satisfaction or performance makes them much more likely to be circumcised."

"BJU International was very keen to publish this large-scale study as there has been a lot of conflicting evidence about the effects of circumcision" says the journal's Editor, Professor John Fitzpatrick from University College Dublin, Ireland.

"We believe that these findings are very important as they can be used to support public health messages that promote circumcision as an effective way of reducing HIV transmission."

The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention. Rakai, Uganda. Kigozi et al. BJU International. Volume 101, pp 65-70. January 2008.

Another source, another study in the matter:

It's official: Circumcision DOESN'T affect sexual pleasure, according to biggest ever study of the issue

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Being circumcised does not affect a man's sex life, a landmark study has revealed.

Australian scientists analysed nearly 40 studies and concluded that the procedure had no effect on sensitivity or satisfaction.

While some studies have previously reported a negative outcome, these were found to have flaws - and their reliability has been called into question by this latest research.

The most scientifically rigorous studies, however, concluded the circumcision had little, if any, effect.

Lead author of the study, Professor Brian Morris of the University of Sydney, told MailOnline: 'This is a ground-breaking article.

'The health benefits of male circumcision have been well documented, including substantially lower risks of HIV and other viral and some bacterial sexually transmitted infections.

'It also lowers rates of penile cancer and possibly prostate cancer - and women whose partners are circumcised have lower rates of cervical cancer and infections such as HPV and chlamydia.

So for the sex there is no difference.

And you say, if you just keep clean, you won't have any diseases. So you think you can battle AIDS with water and soap.

See here the results of a study in that assumption:

http://i-base.info...

http://news.softpedia.com...

http://www.thebody.com...

Medical News
Washing Penis Soon After Sex Increases Risk of HIV Among Uncircumcised Men, Study Says

From Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

August 21, 2007

Washing the penis minutes after sex might increase the risk of HIV infection among uncircumcised men, according to a study funded by NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and presented on July 25 at the 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention in Sydney, Australia, the New York Times reports. According to the Times, the washing analysis was the secondary part of a study undertaken to determine the effectiveness of male circumcision as an HIV prevention method.

For the study, Fredrick Makumbi of the Makerere University Institute of Public Health and colleagues examined 2,552 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men ages 15 to 29 in the Rakai district of Uganda. Eighty-three percent of the participants said they washed their penises with all sex partners, the Times reports. The researchers asked the men when and how they washed their penises -- including if they washed with or without cloths -- after sex at the beginning of the study and at six, 12 and 24 months after the study began. According to Ronald Gray, a study co-author and professor of population and family planning at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the researchers did not ask details about how the washing was conducted or if soap was used because of an oversight. Some soaps used in Africa are more irritating than soaps used in other places, according to the Times.

The researchers found that men who washed within three minutes after sex had a 2.3% risk of HIV infection, compared with a 0.4% risk among men who delayed washing for 10 minutes or more. Makumbi and other AIDS experts said they do not know why washing might increase vulnerability to HIV, but they offered some explanations. One is that delaying washing and prolonging exposure to vaginal secretions might reduce viral infectivity. Another explanation is that the acidity of vaginal secretions might impair the ability of HIV to survive on the penis, the Times reports. In addition, the use of water, which has a neutral pH, might prolong viral survival and possible infectivity, according to the Times. HIV likely needs to be in a fluid to cross the mucosa and infect cells, Gray said, adding that if HIV-infected fluid dries, its infectivity could decrease. Adding water, therefore, could resuspend HIV and increase its infectivity, the Times reports.

One message from the study is that "there ought to be a little time left for postcoital cuddling before you go and wash," Gray said, adding, "Don't just finish and jump out of bed." Merle Sande -- an infectious disease expert at the University of Washington-Seattle and president of the Academic Alliance Foundation, a group that trains health workers to treat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases in Uganda -- said the study's findings are counterintuitive and "show why you have to do the studies, because until you do them, you just don't know." He added, "There is still so much we don't understand about the complex factors that influence HIV transmission in the genital tract, but this important study will help" (Altman, New York Times, 8/21).

So washing makes matters worse.

And considering that circumcision prevents many evil diseases, it is a blessing for mankind.
Gloaten

Con

Heh. Right, only ONE person has ever said they regret their decision to be circumcised.

If you did a little bit of research you'd see how plenty of men who got circumcised when they were older regret their decision.

Also, I'm going to be completely honest, I stopped reading as soon as I saw Uganda. Are you really going to try and base your argument off Africa where disease is very common?
Debate Round No. 2
Eliyahu

Pro

Bs'd

You want me to do your research? It just doesn't work like that. So far you only come up with unsubstantiated claims.

I bring sources to prove my point.

And my sources say that for sex it makes no difference.

Of course you might find people who regret it, just like you can find people who regret having won the lottery.

And about Uganda, you think there are no human beings living in Uganda?

Circumcision there has saved many millions of lives:

November 18, 1999

http://www.ucsf.edu...

A preliminary analysis by Halperin and Malcolm Potts, MD, PhD, Bixby Professor of Population and Family Planning at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, estimates that the practice of male circumcision has so far prevented at least 8 million HIV infections in the 15 African and Asian countries cited in the editorial review alone.

http://www.who.int...

Medical male circumcision for HIV prevention offers excellent value for money. Recent modelling studies found that reaching 80% coverage among men 15 - 49 years old in the priority countries " by performing approximately 20 million circumcisions - would cost US$1.5 billion and would result in net savings of US$16.5 billion by 2025 due to averted treatment and care costs. Achieving, and maintaining, 80% coverage through 2025 would avert 3.4 million new HIV infections.

http://www.who.int...
Compelling evidence for recommendations

In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS issued recommendations on medical male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy based on strong and consistent scientific evidence. Three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda, and Orange Farm, South Africa have shown that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by approximately 60%.

The most recent data from Uganda show that in the five years since the Uganda trial was completed, high effectiveness has been maintained among the men who were circumcised, with a 73% protective effect against HIV infection.

And considering the fact that about 1 in every 3 Americans is running around with a STD, circumcision can also there make a big difference.

https://www.lifesitenews.com...

So circumcision has no drawbacks, only benefits. Big benefits.
Gloaten

Con

Africans aren't human.
Debate Round No. 3
Eliyahu

Pro

Bs'd

Great argument.

But the benefits extent to everyone, not only Africans.

Africans benefit the most, because of AIDS being rampant there, but also for westerners it has many health benefits, without negative aspects.

Apart from that, it greatly improves hygiene.

So how can anybody in his right mind be against male circumcision?
Gloaten

Con

People like me tend to hide things under the folds of their foreskin. It makes for nice storage.
Debate Round No. 4
Eliyahu

Pro

Bs'd

I guess you mainly store there old urine and how do you call that other stinking stuff? Oh right; smegma?
Gloaten

Con

Nah, I eat my smegma and feed my dogs the urine.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
He EATS his,
Posted by ChandanB 2 years ago
ChandanB
What was a winnable debate and a good stance for con,turned out to be some kind of troll.Request pro to debate this with someone reasonable
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
@ Mr.Chorlton Con has done the same in my debate with him
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
It's a shame con ruined what was a very winnable debate.
Posted by Eliyahu 2 years ago
Eliyahu
Bs'd

If you think this is a joke, pick up the gauntlet.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
Is this a joke?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
EliyahuGloatenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: What argument?
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
EliyahuGloatenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro detailed his argument and used sources. Overall Con did not expound on his views or present any clear evidence to support them--as well as offering no rebuttals.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
EliyahuGloatenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented an actual case. Con, by contrast, seems to have decided to stop participating, and what responses he gave were such that it warranted conduct in my opinion.