The Instigator
belle
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Parents should not be allowed to circumcise their male infants

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 10 votes the winner is...
belle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,060 times Debate No: 14110
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (10)

 

belle

Pro

Well Mirza you asked for it.

I will be arguing that the circumcision of infants is equivalent to child abuse and should be abolished.

To be clear:
"Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Child abuse is the physical, sexual, emotional mistreatment, or neglect of children.I n the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define child maltreatment as any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I ask that the first round be used only for acceptance/clarification. Please do not submit any arguments in this round.
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

Very well. I accept the definitions. My stance is that circumcision should be a right on the side of the parents, which means that they should be allowed to circumcise their male child if they feel that it will help him in life one way or another. I hope that both my opponent and I can conduct ourselves and make this an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
belle

Pro

There are two main features of the male circumcision debate: religion and health. I will first explain how circumcision can be considered child abuse and then detail why religion and the supposed health benefits are insufficient for otherwise justifying it.

So- what is circumcision? Basically, the foreskin is sliced off with a scalpel. Pain medication may or may not be used. [1] Though it only takes about 15 minutes, it is a form of surgery, and not something to be taken lightly. Once the procedure is completed, it is irreversible. Though the child may not remember having undergone this operation, he is stuck with the consequences for life. Many men who were circumcised as infants grow up to feel a sense of incompleteness and loss at having been mutilated at such a young age. Furthermore, circumcision may well decrease the ability of a man to experience sexual pleasure. [2]

Children are born under the care and guardianship of their parents; it is generally assumed that the parents have the children's best interests at heart, and this is why they are allowed to make decisions on their child's behalf. I do not question this right in most cases. However, the permanent removal of a body part does not fall under the purview of these parental rights. It is an unnecessary violation of the integrity of the child's body. Like all forms of child abuse, it inflicts a harm on a child that is not in his long term interest.

I would ask my opponent to consider a parallel case- imagine a parent who desired to have her child's pinky finger removed. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant; the important issue is that she considers this issue important to her child's welfare. This treatment would not, should not, be condoned by anyone, even though the pinky finger is ultimately expendable, as is the foreskin. Why? Because the child, though not possessing the full rights of an adult, is still subject to certain inviolable limitations regarding actions one may take against him. For example, it is clearly wrong to kill a child, even though it is not wrong to coerce the child to eat his vegetables or get vaccinations. What's the difference? The actions that are forbidden cause irreparable damage to the child with no reasonable justification backing them. On the other hand, the actions that are permitted are (1) not permanent alterations to the child's bodily integrity and (2) accrue clear benefits to the child. Furthermore, it is NOT the case that if the above actions were not enforced by the parents, the benefits could be gained later on. In other words, if you don't get your childhood vaccinations, you are at risk for many serious diseases throughout your entire childhood, putting you in grave danger from extremely preventable illnesses. And of course, if you have an unhealthy diet as a child, not only are you much more likely to have an unhealthy lifestyle as an adult, but also you are at risk for diabetes and high blood pressure, among other problems, which again, drastically increase risk of illness or death. It is analogous to the difference between having your child's appendix removed because it is infected and threatens his life, and having it removed on a whim.

As detailed in R1, child abuse is described as an act that leads to the actual or potential harm of children. Clearly, removing a body part against the child's will induces actual harm, in the form of physical mutilation and a lifelong diminution of sexual pleasure, as well as the physical pain of the experience (since anesthesia is not always used). The procedure also causes a potential emotional harm, in the form of future dissatisfactions stemming from having a disfigured body part. [3][4]

Of course, this is not to say that circumcision should be illegal in all circumstances. Far from it. Once the child is old enough to give consent, he is more than welcome to undergo or not undergo the operation if he believes it is the right thing for him to do.

One of the main arguments in favor of the circumcision of infants is religious in nature. Restricting parents' ability to perform this ritual is thought to be a form of religious discrimination; people argue that the right to circumcise one's child is required in order to provide freedom of religion. However, I do not advocate making circumcision illegal. I simply advocate outlawing its application to children too young to consent to undergoing the operation.

Though I am not religious, I do support freedom of religion- to a point. As my opponent would agree, female circumcision is an excessive violation of a child's freedom; whether it is advocated by a religion or not, it should not be performed on individuals who have not given consent to the procedure. The mere support of religious authority does not exempt one from the rules of proper conduct. To use another example, in the bible it clearly states that certain crimes are punishable by being stoned to death- this so called "law" is now ignored. Even if some individuals did attempt to put it into practice, however, they would be forbidden from doing so, and punished if they went ahead and did it anyway, because such acts are a violation of the victim's person. I would like to repeat again, I see nothing wrong with males choosing to become circumcised for religious reasons. What I am against is parents making this decision for their kids at a young age, before they are old enough to decide for themselves.

The other major plank of the pro-circumcision argument is health. Advocates claim that being uncircumcised can lower the transmission of HIV, as well as decrease the risk of inflammation of the glans. Especially in the case of HIV prevention, the results are compelling. One study found that circumcised men were 55-65% less likely to contract the virus than uncircumcised men. [5] This is great news, especially if you are at high risk for AIDS transmission. However, such data do not support the claim that parents should be able to mutilate their children. In the first place, babies don't engage in sexual intercourse. Leaving their foreskin intact until they are older and able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to undergo the operation will not put them at great risk from STDs. Furthermore, to put these results in perspective, a condom reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 80-94%. [6] Those are much better odds, and don't cause permanent alteration to an individual's body, not to mention the added benefit of also preventing unwanted pregnancy.

As for the hygiene issue, proper cleaning can eliminate the problems with bacteria getting trapped under the foreskin and causing inflammation. [7] There's certainly no need to cut it off simply to prevent it from getting dirty. If, when he is older, the child feels that he would rather be circumcised than have to deal with the extra effort it takes to keep the foreskin clean, he is more than welcome to make that choice. That doesn't mean that his parents have the right to make that kind of permanent, irreversible decision for him.

In summary, I have shown that the circumcision of infants is a violation of individual sovereignty, one which is not justified by appeal to either religion or health. It's clear that any benefits due to circumcision can accrue to someone having the operation once they are old enough to provide consent to it. Thus mutilating infants is an act of violence against them and should not be tolerated in civil society.

1. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
2. http://www.cirp.org...
3. http://www.cirp.org...
4. http://www.cirp.org...
5. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
6. http://www.ashastd.org...
7. http://familydoctor.org...
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

My opponent said that once the procedure of circumcision is completed, it is irreversible, and even though a child doesn't remember it, he is "stuck with the consequences for life." May I ask, which consequences? We are talking about a little piece of skin that is removed. I would hardly say there are any significant negative consequences from foreskin removal, even if a person regrets it. In point of fact, I come from the Balkans where circumcision is normal, and I have never heard of one single person who has ever regretted being circumcised. I have not even heard of people from anywhere else around the world having regret the fact that they've been circumcised. I don't know where my opponent gets her "fact" that "Many men who were circumcised as infants grow up to feel a sense of incompleteness and loss at having been mutilated at such a young age."

Moving on, my opponent said that circumcision can decrease the sexual pleasure of a man. When I heard of this argument before, I thought that it could be a valid and important point. However, through some thought about it, I can easily say that this is, in fact, a weak claim. Why is that? See, I am arguing for infant circumcision in this debate. There are a few points to be made: (1) It might be that adults who get circumcised lose their sexual pleasure, but we cannot know whether or not that is the case for infants. (2) When a child gets circumcised, he cannot possibly know of a better sexual pleasure when he grows up, even though he is circumcised, because he never had anything better. The child loses nothing. He cannot feel bad about losing sexual pleasure if he hasn't experienced anything better.

My opponent comes with a parallel case where a child's finger is removed. This is a bad comparison. There are no health benefits from removing a person's finger. I would like my opponent to name one. Moreover, a circumcised person has no fewer abilities than a non-circumcised person. Those who get their finger removed get no health benefits, they might feel a bit embarrassed, they might be teased, they might not be able to do things which other people can do, and I can continue for a while.

My opponent claims that removing a body art goes against the child's will. This is, of course, a horrible argument. What kind of an act is accepted by an infant, or other children? Do parents ask their baby whether it wants milk or coke? Not at all. A parent has the right to make decisions for his/her child, even if we speak about circumcision. Let me ask, what if a child shows early signs of e.g., pectus carinatum?[1] This chest deformity is not too dangerous (except if it is a symptom to Marfan's Syndrome), and a person can live with it without correcting it. However, he might have difficulties breathing, he might be ridiculed by peers, and he might have low self-esteem. Should a parent have right to call for surgery on his child who might suffer from this deformity? Yes. Now, the child might be against it in the future because he feels bad about having had a surgery - however, that does not take away the right of his parents to correct his deformity in the first place. If they feel that it will be easier for them to cope with the child both socially and economically by correcting his deformity at an early age, then they have the right to do so, even though the child might be against it when he grows up.

My opponent mentions that some studies found circumcision to prevent HIV by reducing the risk of infection as much as 55-65%. This is true. Other studies have shown even a few percents more. Then my opponent moves on to mention that condoms work better than circumcision. This is poor logic. First of all, not everyone uses condoms. There are good reasons why STD's are pretty common in the Western world. http://www.avert.org... Parents should be able to call for circumcision on their children if they want their children to be safer in the future. Moreover, circumcision does not only reduce the risk of HIV infection.

"The trials also found that male circumcision decreased herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) acquisition by 28% to 34% and the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) by 32% to 35% in men.

Among female partners of circumcised men, bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40% and Trichomonas vaginalis infection was reduced by 48%, the study authors write."

http://www.medscape.com...

There are many health benefits. If you read the article, you will see that renowned health organizations recommended circumcision. In fact, these health benefits are not replaced by proper cleaning of the male genitalia, as my opponent suggests.

To conclude, circumcision comes with many health benefits, and it does not prevent a person from functioning normally. There are no mental or physical consequences which are detrimental to one's health if circumcision is performed at an early age. Parents have to take care of their children, and making sure that they are safe even if their children forget to use condoms during sex, is something which gives parents right to circumcise their male children. Also, the sources my opponent cited are fairly biased. Cirp.org cites outdated and unsupported scientific data. http://www.cirp.org... even mentions Sigmund Freud, who had little knowledge of circumcision.

-- Reference(s) --

[1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
belle

Pro

Jumping right in…

"…I have never heard of one single person who has ever regretted being circumcised. I have not even heard of people from anywhere else around the world having regret the fact that they've been circumcised…"

Unfortunately for my opponent, the fact that it seems incredible to him that people regret having been circumcised as children is no argument for the mutilation of infants. I provided several links showing that some individuals grow up with negative feelings regarding the fact that they are circumcised. On a related note, the CIRP website he claimed was biased, indeed is- its made and run by people who regret having been circumcised, and who want to give other people the freedom to choose what is done to their bodies. That's why I used it as support for the claim that some who are circumcised as infants become unhappy about it later in life.

My opponent also seems to have misunderstood my argument about decreased sexual pleasure.

"(1) It might be that adults who get circumcised lose their sexual pleasure, but we cannot know whether or not that is the case for infants."

The foreskin contains many nerve endings, including specialized ones that may not occur elsewhere. [1] By removing it, the doctor is removing those nerve endings; thus the total amount of sensation in the area is decreased for a lifetime, regardless of the age at removal. Perhaps many men would not mind this, but that doesn't give anyone the right to make that decision for them before they have the chance.

"(2) When a child gets circumcised, he cannot possibly know of a better sexual pleasure when he grows up, even though he is circumcised, because he never had anything better."

First of all, even if he's never experienced anything better because he's been circumcised all his life, he will clearly be aware that he is missing something; the information on circumcision is readily available on the internet and elsewhere. Second, the fact that one has never known anything better is no justification for depriving them of something, regardless of what my opponent would think. If he were born under a severely restrictive dictatorship, I doubt he would call it justified simply because he's never lived under a regime allowing more freedoms.

Next, Mirza claims that my pinky finger analogy fails because removing a finger has no health benefits and because someone missing a foreskin is just as functional as someone who is not. However, the fact of the matter is, the major health benefits of circumcision are NOT reaped by infants or children- they are reaped by adults. Infants don't need to worry about catching STDs. And while uncircumcised males are more likely to catch a urinary tract infection in their first year of life, there is still only a 1% chance of this occurring even in uncircumcised infants. [2] Performing an unnecessary surgery in order to reduce the risk of something with a minimal chance of occurring anyway is a severe overreaction. The "health benefits" to an infant that has been circumcised as compared to an uncircumcised infant are negligible.

In any case, the pinky finger is also mainly non-functional; grasping, holding, and even typing can be performed easily without it. And depending on what country the child lives in, he is just as likely to be teased for being circumcised as he is for missing a pinky finger. In fact, as an informal observation, I have noticed that men's self esteem tends to be more tied up in the state of their sexual organs than it is in the state of their pinky fingers. :P
"My opponent claims that removing a body art goes against the child's will. This is, of course, a horrible argument. What kind of an act is accepted by an infant, or other children? Do parents ask their baby whether it wants milk or coke? Not at all."

It's as if my opponent didn't even read my argument last round. There are some things it is ok for a parent to decide for a child- I never denied that. Issues of nutrition, and of immediate safety, obviously fall under the purview of parental rights because the child is not capable of making the decisions themselves and if they are not made by the parents this will likely lead to irreparable harm done later on. But circumcision is no such case. If the decision of whether or not to be circumcised is postponed until the child is old enough to make it himself, no harm will be done. On the other hand, if the child is allowed to have coke every night for dinner instead of milk he could likely end up with diabetes or worse. Circumcision is clearly not the same sort of case.

"Should a parent have right to call for surgery on his child who might suffer from this deformity?"

In the first place, having a foreskin is natural, not a deformity. If anything, not having a foreskin is a sort of deformity since it is the result of surgical alteration to the body. Secondly, "trouble breathing" is not a harmless symptom, is a potential medical emergency. Thirdly, doctors strongly recommend that those under the age of 18 do not have surgery to correct the condition (assuming no health complications), especially if it is mild. [3] Finally, I would say that unless the child's health is at risk, the decision to have their condition surgically corrected, or not, should be left to them. Again, assuming they are not at risk of serious health complications, there is no harm done in waiting. If the child is ashamed of the condition and capable of understanding the risks of surgery his request for it should be honored. But if he does not want the surgery, there's no reason for his parents to force him.

My opponent also dedicated a large portion of his case to proving that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, again apparently having not read my case. By the time a child is old enough to engage in sexual intercourse he is presumably old enough to decide whether or not he wants his foreskin removed to "protect" him against STDs. Obviously a much more effective and less invasive strategy for doing so would be to use a condom, which also, again, prevents pregnancy with a 99% effectiveness, as well as protecting the woman against catching STDs from the man. But that is entirely irrelevant. That doesn't justify circumcising an infant who won't be engaging in sexual intercourse anytime soon.

My opponent has also entirely ignored my comments on the religious issues involving circumcision. I can only assume this means he concedes the argument.

While Mirza has made a somewhat convincing case for why males should want to be circumcised, he has yet to introduce any overwhelming (or even underwhelming) evidence to support the claim that circumcising infants or children is preferable to leaving the decision up to the individual once they are old enough to choose.

1. http://www.cirp.org...
2. http://www.parents.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mirza

Con

Mirza forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
belle

Pro

Well that's unfortunate. Hopefully Mirza will return next round.
Mirza

Con

I wish to point out that I apologize for the forfeit, which came because I had 11 minutes to post my argument when my Internet connection got cut, all of sudden. I was pretty ill those days, hence the postpone, too. I thank my opponent for allowing me to come with slightly new arguments even in the last round. I think my new arguments are mostly parallel opposites of my opponent's arguments, so they stand side by side and people can judge which ones are most sound.

-- Arguments --

First, I will start by saying that I wrote my statement to be a bit unclear it seems. What I meant was that I have personally not met any people who regret having been circumcised, which is why I stated that I am from the Balkans, and I've never heard of anyone regretting having been circumcised. I have met people from various areas in the world, and I never heard of any who are saddened by the fact that they got circumcised. Naturally, there are people who do regret having been circumcised, but many have also regret the fact that their parents didn't let them take alcohol when their peeps did. Regret does not equivocate negativity.

"The foreskin contains many nerve endings, including specialized ones that may not occur elsewhere."

There are tons of things which can affect sexual pleasure. Circumcision might affect it on *some* people, but not all. Sex is also more psychological than physical; one cannot enjoy it solely because his foreskin helps him do so. If he has a mental breakdown, he'll hardly enjoy sex. Removing the foreskin, again, can take away pleasure for some people, and it can have no effect - regarding pleasure - on other people. There is a difference of opinion regarding this issue.

"The recent study from the US and Kenya published in the British Journal of Urology found that there was no difference in sexual sensations between circumcised and uncircumcised men." http://health.infoniac.com...

The same site mentions studies which prove that circumcision does cut down some sensations. Moreover, a site says,

"Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study. Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as 'an advantage, rather than a complication,' writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology." http://men.webmd.com...

"30% of male population suffers from PE." http://cureprematureejaculation.net...

Premature Ejaculation is a common "disorder" which affects a significant percentage of the world population. It means that men who have sex get an early ejaculation, or orgasm, and that can lead to several problems with his spouse, who doesn't get satisfied when he does. This problem is widespread and is well-known for affecting couples negatively. Therefore, there is good in the fact that circumcision makes men last longer in bed.

My opponent said that a person will be aware that he is "missing something" later in life. Being aware of of the fact that you're circumcised cannot make you aware of the fact that you are experiencing a worse sexual pleasure in the sense that you *know* how to differentiate between sexual pleasure before circumcision and after circumcision. A person who was circumcised as an infant *cannot* know the difference personally - he can only be *aware* that there is a difference, but he can't feel it.

"Next, Mirza claims that my pinky finger analogy fails because removing a finger has no health benefits and because someone missing a foreskin is just as functional as someone who is not."

Yes, the analogy is horrific because removing the finger brings no benefits ever, while removing the foreskin has numerous health benefits. Just because the majority of the health benefits come in teenage years doesn't mean that circumcision is the same as removing a finger. So, how can finger removal be synonymous to circumcision in terms of benefits? Finger removal can (1) make someone feel bad about himself, (2) make his life a bit harsher, because it can distort the looks, and looks are important to people when it comes to e.g., romance. Do you know that we even cut a person's abilities by removing a finger? E.g., a person can't really be a hand model without a finger. Even though the chances that someone wants to become a hand model are actually small, it remains a fact that we still cut the opportunities in life for someone by removing their finger. However, that is *not* the case with circumcision. Whatever bad it might bring, the positives outweigh the negatives without doubt. That's why the analogy is bad.

"And depending on what country the child lives in, he is just as likely to be teased for being circumcised as he is for missing a pinky finger"

I wonder what kind of a country that would be. Circumcision is extremely widespread. Arab countries find in normal, African countries don't mind it (and Arab countries are part of Africa), a great part of Asians are circumcised, hereby in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, North America has circumcision as a norm, and so on. It's not true that you are just as likely to get teased. Even if that were the case, I already explained why circumcision is still different to finger removal.

Next, my opponent mentions immediate safety as one of the reasons for allowing parents to do something to their children. Safety is safety, whether short-term or long-term. Parents care as much about my safety right now as they do in 10 years, and now that I'm still considered a child, they have every right to be part of my decision-making which involves my safety. Now, I will elaborate on why circumcision is a right that a parent has to make use of upon his male children.

My opponent presumes that when a child is "old enough" to have sex, he will get circumcised if he wishes to. Readers, how is this a valid argument? Had people actually paid attention to safety when they were having sex for the first time, how would statistics actually look? Would unintended pregnancy still be an issue, perhaps? Would STD's still be an issue? Not the least. However, we have both -- and why? That is *because* people aren't careful enough. No matter how old one is, mistakes happen. Now, a child is a child, and his parent will have to deal with many of his own mistakes, *especially* if such a mistake involves having STD's transmitted. However, a circumcised child will have far lesser chances of getting infected than a non-circumcised child. Why should a parent not have the right to circumcise their child in order to make sure that even if their child has unprotected sex, he minimizes his risk of being infected?

Take a look at this: http://www.sexualityandu.ca...

Can you see the median age of first intercourse? We consider the age of 16 being childhood. A person makes many mistakes during his childhood, and who can tell a parent that he isn't allowed to let his son have a piece of unnecessary skin removed so that far better results can come off of that? We have STD's being spread in USA, and imagine if people weren't circumcised as much as they are over there - things would be worse. That's why circumcision is being recommended as a medical procedure by various world health organizations.

Please look: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Are these statistics not shocking? Yes they are. Why should we prevent parents from making their kids safer only due to near-useless skin, whereof the results are increased sexual pleasure, decreased risk of infection, etc.? The argument that boys can't actually regret the procedure doesn't hold water. The parents also can't regret it if their child gets infected with HIV because they never circumcised him.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
RFD

I am against parents making decisions that affect their children for their entire lives, especially when they are unneeded, and can kill.

I would normally vote against on conduct, but Mirza couldn't really help it, so that is a bit more of an emotional point. I did not see anything else compelling on that issue.

I didn't get caught up in spelling errors, so tied.

Mirza's argument hold no water, especially with my outside knowledge.
Also the last round with the pinky example, cemented it, it did not persuade me except to more agree with the opponent, because there really is no difference when you think about it.

Sources-
I kinda should have put that under conduct now that I think about it, its because of how they were cited, and belle made it easier.
Posted by Trojanman13120 6 years ago
Trojanman13120
oh and freeman the only thing compelling is you knowingly taking "...babies don't engage in sexual intercourse" out of context. Ignorant ignorant ignorant.....
Posted by Trojanman13120 6 years ago
Trojanman13120
lmao a female arguing about circumcision. I got an idea how about people minding their own business and let the parents decided what's best. As far as legal issues go its ok to kill an infant inside a human being so I don't even know why belle brings anything legal up. What an ignorant excuse for using up my oxygen.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
RFD:

Conduct point to Pro for the forfeit.

Pro's arguments were compelling. Given that circumcision causes harm to the child (and given that it is not necessary for the immediate health of the child), children should be free to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised.

Con's arguments and sources were irrelevant. As Pro pointed out "...babies don't engage in sexual intercourse." Even if circumcision does have benefits, those benefits only come about later in life. Thus, the child should decide. At any rate, health benefits alone can't justify allowing parents to be able to mutilate their children unless the procedure is essential. Circumcision is not essential.

Arguments and sources both go to Pro.
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
"...babies don't engage in sexual intercourse."

LOL
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Again, it depends on how people look at it. I argue for male circumcision; if people think that these arguments can also be used for female circumcision, fine, but I am not arguing for it. I think it is different, but it doesn't matter. I argue for one thing here.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
. . . what about female infants . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
It depends on how people look at it, but I argue for male circumcision, because I find female circumcision to be different.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
I presume all arguments then hold for female circumcision too?
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
primarily. so long as new arguments are not introduced in the final round, i am ok with however you choose to structure your case.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
belleMirzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
belleMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Trojanman13120 6 years ago
Trojanman13120
belleMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by vbaculum 6 years ago
vbaculum
belleMirzaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
belleMirzaTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
belleMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by MitchyMill 6 years ago
MitchyMill
belleMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
belleMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
belleMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
belleMirzaTied
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:13