The Instigator
Sukhmeet
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
msheahan99
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Should Forced Circumcision be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
msheahan99
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,478 times Debate No: 43146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

Sukhmeet

Pro

I think circumcision should be banned because it leads to an innocent infant having one of their body parts cut off, and for those that think that it is good for your child's well-being and lessens their sexual pleasure than you are wrong miserably, when a little kid gets circumcised they cry like crazy, and if you are fighting for circumcision than you clearly don't care about the well being of your child, debate this if you can I am challenging anyone who can give a logical debate on this!
msheahan99

Con

I believe it is illogical to ban circumcision. I believe the main reasons to not ban circumcision are the health benefits, the AAP states that these include Decreased risk of urinary infections, Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections, Prevention of penile issues and Decreased risk of penile cancer. Your say that is that it is cruel to the child, however so would be giving a child a shot. A child "cries like crazy" when he is getting a shot, but it is better for him in the future.
Debate Round No. 1
Sukhmeet

Pro

The reason forced circumcision is bad for being forced is because it doesn't actually lessen sexual pleasure, that is all in the mind of how much you like sex, it is also a violation of human rights and no major medical organization recommends it anymore, to add on many countries have already banned circumcision for most instances. A shot is nothing compared to losing the foreskin of a penis, you can still take shots today and they will actually have a bandage to help you, not for circumcision!
msheahan99

Con

How does the fact that it doesn't lessen sexual pleasure affect this debate? That's proof that decreased sexual pleasure is not a side affect, which actually goes in my favor because there is no side affect to it. How is a shot nothing compared? It is a medical action which hurts the child yet is better in the long run. What do you mean there is no bandage for circumcision? The fact that you said that proves to me that you have not researched your topic and that you shouldn't be debating this.
Debate Round No. 2
Sukhmeet

Pro

I have certain proof that this is not a good idea
Doctors:
Human Rights:
Certain Laws n countries:
Testimony:
Live:
I want you to defend your position do it
msheahan99

Con

Although you posted many links none of them exceeded the year 2010, thus all of your evidence is outdated. I present evidence from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating that circumcision's benefits outweigh it's risk.
http://bit.ly...
http://bit.ly...
This evidence is from August 31st 2012, more recent then your evidence and thus more substantial. Also, you did not respond to any of my arguments in round 2, so these arguments fall in the favor of con, and thus the round should too.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Ah, I didn't realize. Well, you still got my vote, and apparently most people agree that you deserve to win the round.
Posted by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
@whiteflame it is hard to put these arguments in the debate because the arguments where meant to be 500 characters long.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
You're giving a lot of arguments that probably should have been in the debate, but weren't. That doesn't, however, make Con's case nontopical. He can advocate for forced circumcision stating that there are health benefits even if the medical profession disagrees. The links he provided may not support forced circumcision, but they do show some amount of health benefits. Whether they or you consider those sufficient to recommend the practice is irrelevant, since Pro never brought that up. Con, at the very least, stated some medical harms that could occur in the absence of circumcision.

I get that you don't like forced circumcision, but the burden you're giving Con is absolutely immense, and it's not one that's stated within the round either. For you, it's not sufficient that he provided uncontested medical harms within the round - he must also prove that the entire medical profession has rallied behind forced circumcision for that reason. I don't see that as a fair burden in the slightest. He can argue in a way that supports the best medical outcomes while disagreeing with most doctors.

Yes, he didn't use the best links, but it's Pro's job to respond to them, not yours. If Pro gave me even one sentence of response, I would probably find your point more persuasive. All he does is post a bunch of YouTube videos which he doesn't even take the time to summarize in any form. Maybe you find that persuasive, or maybe you just don't like Con's argument. For me, Pro's argument holds very little in the way of persuasion, nor does my personal preference affect my selection.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually the URLs Con cited also stated the evidence was not good enough to support forced circumcisions, so Con actually didn't pick good evidence that was wholly supportive of Con's position.

Con's evidence was not convincing, because it sits in the middle.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There has never been a move towards Forced Circumcisions on medical grounds.
It will not happen.
It is not a decision the medical practice will even remotely consider taking.

The only movement towards Forced Circumcision by individual Doctors is on religious faith grounds alone.
So to claim there is even a consideration of forcing circumcision onto males from the medical profession is a red herring.
It's make believe.

Human rights issues wold prevent any such move for starters and most doctors consider the medical evidence for circumcision is not strong enough to warrant any such consideration.
Most evidence cited so far are from Medicos who pander to Religious Interests. So the reasons for pushing it is truly a religious one.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
So, I suppose what I don't get is this. You state that Con is off topic. The reason you think he was off topic is because he addressed the medical issue, which you believe isn't a problem for those who don't get circumcisions. But you admit to situations where it is a medical harm, even pointing to one yourself, which could have been prevented by forced circumcision.

I don't see how Con's argument doesn't work in forced circumcision as a forced preventative measure. It's not equivalent to stating that we should have mandatory vaccinations, but the medical benefits of vaccination still apply in the mandatory situation. So do any possible medical benefits of circumcision. Pro doesn't point to any medical harms, nor do I see much of a case for why loss of the child's freedom is harmful. It's fine if you want to provide more weight to the freedom argument anyway, as neither side weighed their arguments in the round, but disregarding the whole argument because you feel that discussing the potential medical benefits of circumcision isn't topical in a debate about forcing circumcision is going a bit far.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No, I don't feel all that strongly about it, I and my medical friends all think it is a Non-Issue, nobody advocates forced circumcision but religion.
To state it is a medical cause is completely wrong, Con never addressed the real reason behind forced circumcision.
Con only argued about Circumcision.
Con never really addressed the topic: "Forced Circumcision" properly.
In that regards they were both demonstrating ignorance, Pro with ignorance of Con's points and Con with ignorance of the debate topic.
Though I regard ignorance of the Debate Topic as a bigger Flaw in any debaters argument.
If the debater is Off Topic, then it's not unethical for their opponent to ignore their off topic points.
I didn't agree with some of Pro's statements either, but that is beside my point.
Circumcision is a non-issue medically, it's only an issue for Jews, Christians and Muslims, nobody else.
It's only religions that continually push such non-issues as if they are an issue.
That is what irritates moi.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually my son's condition was an extremely rare exception. Our doctor had never heard of his condition before, he consulted a pediatric specialist who also had never heard of the condition.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I'm not claiming that Con was right in his medical arguments, but you're making points that Pro never made. Con may never have provided the links themselves in his other posts, but he did reference his first medical point. In fact, many of the arguments you provide never appear within the debate, and Pro spent his last post linking out to YouTube videos that, technically, extend his arguments well beyond the space limit and don't help his case anyway, since they're just videos and not data.

You obviously feel very strongly about this, and while I disagree with you, I'm not going to have it out with you in the comments, as this is not something I feel nearly as strongly about. But it seems like you're more interested in showing that your side of the debate should win than actually pointing to reasons Pro has won the debate. It's not about your arguments. It's about theirs.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Con posted medical links that actually stated that there is no reason for mass circumcision of infants.
I know many uncircumcised men, none of them have any issues.
My son was an exception, such exceptions benefit from it, the medical studies are dubious.
The only group that want circumcision forced onto male infants are religious groups that have circumcision as part of their dogma.
There are no strictly medical groups that want circumcision for all males, well certainly not here.
The only groups I've ever seen advocating circumcision for all males are medical groups that have strict religious affiliations and then it is a religious doctrine based call for circumcision, not a medical call.
These groups are often the same groups that publish the fraudulently biased benefits of circumcision.
My uncircumcised friends, two of them are doctors, just think their studies are hogwash.

They don't have enough evidence to support their religion based medical stupidity.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
Sukhmeetmsheahan99Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CON addresses the benefits to which PRO never rebuted or even attempted to
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Sukhmeetmsheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to CON (text is better than video) Arguments to CON (the idea of unforced circumcision assumes age of consent, and the pain of adult circumcision is substantial. Neither touched on the issue of religious freedom, but circumcision is a required practice for Jewish men, and a recommended practice for Christian men.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Sukhmeetmsheahan99Tied
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 did in fact respond to those arguments. Providing evidence last round was problematic, and should have been done earlier when it0 could have been debated. Pro did provide an excellent amount of evidence, and I don't buy that because it was three years old its out of date. I wish con had cited this evidence earlier. Sexual pleasure did not sway me, thanks to Con's good rebuttals there. Good debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Sukhmeetmsheahan99Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued about Circumcision in general, even con's sources stated the evidence for circumcision didn't warrant forced circumcision on all males. There may be benefits in circumcision, but, forced circumcision, such as for Traditional or religious reasons should not be adhered to, they should be banned. The choice should be made by the individual child/youth, once they are aware of the pros and cons. Not a choice made by parents. Except in our own situation where the foreskin caused difficulty in urination, then it is a medical reason, not a forced Circumcision. Con started a little off track. and didn't get back on.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Sukhmeetmsheahan99Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fundamentally mishandles this debate. Sexual pleasure doesn't help you, as Con points out. So all you have is harm to autonomy, and damage. Con's response regarding shots is valid and shrugged off too easily. Con takes it one step further and gives several medical benefits, to which Pro provides no response. So all Pro has left is loss of autonomy, which Pro never weighs in the round or even fully explains. So I weigh the badly articulated autonomy argument against a partially explained and partially cited medical argument with distinct harms. Con wins this hands down. Pro's grammar and syntax could use some work. Conduct is relatively even, but since Con at least had a partial citation (give the link next time), he wins on that front too.