The Instigator
Burls
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zanomi3
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

The Mutilation Of Baby Boys As A Testament To Their Devotion Is Unreasonable

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 5 votes the winner is...
Zanomi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 63632
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Burls

Pro

Religious circumcision is a conscious decision adopted by the faithful, but amounts to cruelty when imposed upon a child in the manner of a medical procedure or indoctrination.
Zanomi3

Con

Accepted.

I was considering arguing this from the standpoint of circumcision in general, and not just religious circumcision. However, I don't want to stray from the resolution, so my argument will remain in the realm of religious circumcision.

Being a one round debate, I will rebut as well as provide my own arguments, as well as a short conclusion.

R1) "Religious circumcision is a conscious decision adopted by the faithful"

This is a true statement. It is a conscious decision, something that they chose to do. This does not apply to the argument however, as it is not a question of conscious decision or not. It is a debate on cruelty.

R2) "but amounts to cruelty"

Cruelty is not defined. Nor would this be cruel, especially when done in medical areas and by professionals.

Argument 1:

All I really need is one argument, as BoP was not fulfilled by Pro. Circumcision has benefits [1], and can be done in a humane way (especially if anesthetics are used).

One round debate, Pro provided no arguments, failed to uphold BoP, no sources, etc...

Thanks, Vote Pro

Sources:

[1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
All children are indoctrinated by everything because they don't develop critical thinking abilities in regards to their world-view until around age 8 (if they're lucky). Some never develop it. They are like sponges. I know I was until I turned 8, and then I realized everything my parents said was a joke. I became a free-thinker.

If children are indoctrinated with anything, it should be the scientific method and a concern for human rights, beyond national boundaries (this is different than dogmatic atheism or secularism, by the way). Religions should be transformed by these two principles --- but if they can't or aren't, it doesn't necessarily mean they're all bad. If they agree with any type of offensive war, however, they need to shut up. Most religions don't preach this.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
And do you think indoctrination of the young in their parents or nations predominate religious views isn't cruel? Look at all the Jews and Muslims afraid to appear open minded in case their neighbor knocks them on the head with a rock- OK, what's your opinion.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Burls, what you believe isn't matter. The truth is that circumcision reduces cancer risk and it causes no problems at all when it comes to love.

Tell you the truth, I'd've been mad at my folks if they didn't get me circumcised when I was too young to remember the ordeal. I can't imagine havin' it done now. I don't even like goin' to the doctors for nothing. But I'd still get the operation done.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
I believe the adopted custom of circumcision is antiquated, and the custom of religious indoctrination is cruel.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Burls, I'm circumcised and I never had any problems, especially not with "decreased satisfaction in coitus which can contribute to feelings of inadequacy with resulting anti-social consequences". What are you even talking about? You're crazier than a bag of cats.
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
"...where antibiotics are readily available, the physical harm outweighs long-term benefit for both HIV and UTI prevention.

The ethical issues in removing healthy tissue from patients who are unable to consent to the procedure forms the basis of another treatise. One can only imagine the outcry if baby girls were submitted to cosmetic surgery in the first few days of life. Do our baby boys deserve less?'
-Deirdre Andres, MD CCFP
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
Most people live to a ripe old age, these days, without removal of the foreskin. In fact circumcision can result in decreased satisfaction in coitus which can contribute to feelings of inadequacy with resulting anti-social consequences.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
I'd consider this.

In actual fact, circumcison is a simple medical procedure. Infant boys have to be cirmcumcised if there is an issue with that particular area, does that too count as "cruel"?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BurlsZanomi3Tied
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: con manages to fully rebut pro, with sources too!
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
BurlsZanomi3Tied
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: Pro's "argument" was weak, even if he had elaborated. Con wins on sources also.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
BurlsZanomi3Tied
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: I really wish Pro had explained why circumcision amounts to cruelty. Con gets points for arguments and sources. They are matched in all the other criteria.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BurlsZanomi3Tied
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: Con's argument was more fully expressed.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
BurlsZanomi3Tied
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: A one-word sentence is not a debate, and Con with a single source made the only argument they needed to make to win the debate; namely that medical circumcision is a medically advantageous procedure that helps prevent disease. Pro seemed to be attempting emotional appeal and baseless assertion without any evidence, facts, or sources whatsoever.