The Instigator
Thoht
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Adam_Godzilla
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Circumcision is Male 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 2 votes the winner is...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 119060
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

R1: Acceptance and Basic Arguments. Con can rebut if they wish.
R2: Counterargument and Expansion
R3: Counterargument and Conclusion.

Clarification:

The justification that we, As a society, Use for circumcision (Henceforth MGM or Male Genital Mutilation) is one of the two following problematic statements:

1. MGM is to be condoned on religious grounds.

Should we as a society permit our citizenry mutilating their children, Doing permanent damage to them, Before those persons have a voice or opinion on the matter? I submit that we do not allow Female Genital Mutilation (Henceforth FGM) on religious grounds. Why do we accept Male Genital Mutilation for religious purposes?

I submit that children are not born religious. Many leave the religions their parents attempt to indoctrinate them into. They see themselves as mutilated. With good reason. More on this later.

2. MGM is permissible because we don't have to teach people to clean it if it is removed.

The arguments for this are weak. There is some science behind MGM at birth causing infections, And there are many cases where MGM is botched which results in the destruction of the penis. Particularly when done by uneducated priests. Particularly when done by priests/rabbi who orally suck the blood out during their ritual.

Teeth pose much more troublesome of a problem for hygiene. Why do we not remove peoples teeth and install artificial teeth upon birth? Without painkillers as often as not no less.

This argument is problematic because you're mutilating a baby without its consent for hygiene purposes. You are doing so even though they could choose to have this procedure done in the future willingly if so they wished.

The damage done to the penis reduces sensitivity. This is by definition true. You can bring up articles that say otherwise, But I will be able to point out their flaws. Justifying permanent genital mutilation on religious or hygiene grounds without consent from the person is a disgusting practice.

To conclude,

I submit that the hygiene excuse is nothing more than religious people trying to mark all of us without our consent. I submit that people should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves if they wish when they are old enough to make this decision willingly, And that religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without their consent.

On a personal note I have been genitally mutilated. I do not hold it against my parents as they are conforming to a norm. My position is not that they are beings who are without flaw. My position is that parents need to know that this is not acceptable as a practice. That they do not own their children, Nor does the state, But that their children own themselves.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Adam_Godzilla

Con

Alas, Thot, We battle. Such is inevitable between fellow rivals.

I'm gonna think the S**t out of this.


My arguments:

1) It makes the penis look good. Women like it.
2) Uncircumcised penis smells. I remember my uncircumcised days. I shudder when I opened the skin. And don't tell me to "peel it and wash it" it was freaking impossible. My skin was not that flexible.
3) "The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that circumcision's benefits outweigh its risks"

Rebuttal:

1. "MGM is to be condoned on religious grounds. "

Yeah, Leave religion out of this.

2. "MGM is permissible because we don't have to teach people to clean it if it is removed. "

Yeah, Let's not have priests suck out blood from penises.

"Teeth pose much more troublesome of a problem for hygiene. Why do we not remove peoples teeth and install artificial teeth upon birth? "

It's harder to clean the uncircumcised penis. It's painful (i tried) and mostly unsuccessful, Leaving a foul foul stench behind. I would not let any woman near my penis if it had that foul foul foul foul smell.

"You are doing so even though they could choose to have this procedure done in the future willingly if so they wished. "

This is not the resolution. Of course we shouldn't circumcise babies. But once you're old enough, I'd say please do it.

"The damage done to the penis reduces sensitivity.

"no well-done studies find a reduction of sensitivity" - Livescience - "And a January study of about 10, 000 German men found no difference in erectile function based on circumcision status. "

"On a personal note I have been genitally mutilated. "
Welcome to the club man.
Debate Round No. 1
Thoht

Pro

Before I rebut, I would like to point out that I'm not certain you read all of my R1. In it I made clear that this isn't about banning circumcision for adults who consent. It's entirely about banning the procedure from being done to babies. Once they're adults they can do as they wish, Or if their Doctor claims it is a necessary procedure. I'll expand on this later.

You as much as have conceded the argument already. You have agreed that we shouldn't circumcise babies. It wasn't up to you to decide what the debate was about in R1. I clarified fairly clearly what the debate was about in my R1. The topic isn't allowed to be long enough for me to clarify completely. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if my assertion here is accurate, But I'll have to address your points as if you're defending the circumcision of children, And I will rebut your flawed points.

1. Women's Preference

Is it justification to mutilate the genitals of a person against their will because the opposite sex might like how it looks better? The penis is an ugly thing. I don't think many consider it a beautiful thing. If the majority of Muslim men like how FGM makes the vagina look, Is that acceptable?

As far as using this reason as an adult with a partner who prefers a cut penis, We have no issues.

2. Uncircumcised Penis Smells, Et cetera.

It is not necessary that an uncut penis smells. The foreskin is attached with the head on birth, But the attachments largely break by the age of 2. This is the case in 90% of boys at the age of 2. (1) It CAN take some years for it to become fully retractable, But largely this happens fairly quickly. At this point boys just need to be taught to retract it and clean it. Your anecdote sounds exceptional, And perhaps a doctor would have told you you needed a circumcision or you needed the attachments severed. I'm not a doctor, But it seems like your situation had a solution without circumcision to allow for cleaning.

Uncut men aren't all out there with unclean penises. Despite your personal experience, It is generally far more difficult to clean your teeth than your penis. If it was painful for you to clean your penis, It sounds like a doctor should have to help you with that. But you're trying to take a situation that is 4 standard deviations from the norm and make it sound like it is normal. Anecdotes are sometimes worse than having no data at all.

3. AAP has concluded benefits>risks.

You haven't justified this claim at all. You haven't linked a source. So I'll do it for you:

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, The American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, But the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, Says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, Ethical and cultural beliefs. " (2, 3)

In this comparison (3) they do not specify many numbers. They don't engage with the moral arguments against it either. The consent of the person being mutilated does not come into consideration. The UTI reduction rate is looking at newborns aged 0-1, When infant males are extremely unlikely to develop UTIs compared to females (1. 8% males, 6. 6% females). On top of that, This 1. 8% number of males who get UTIs (4) and the 1. 4% (5) rate of complications in circumcisions for infants is not weighed at all. This percentage is WILDLY higher when you also count traditional circumcision in it. There are nearly as many complications in the circumcision procedure as there are UTIs IN ALL MALE CHILDREN. It is intellectually dishonest that the AAP doesn't show these numbers in their publication. They know it disproves their own points.

They cite reductions in STD spread in Africa as justification. This is correlation, Not causation for one. Secondly, This does not justify circumcision as a child with no consent. Adults can choose circumcision prior to engaging in copious amounts of sex. Even if they could prove something about the foreskin was the direct cause of 100% of the marked difference (extremely unlikely), It would not outweigh the consent of the person being mutilated in my books. The reduction in cancer rates is the same thing, 1. You have a correlation with no clear causal link. 2. Adults can be circumcised if they choose and potentially gain the same benefit. Neither are an argument for mutilation with no consent.

If you analyze only the benefits, Of course the benefits outweigh the negatives. Note the AAP does not recommend circumcision. The AAP is trying not to stir the religious pot in some sense by saying "the decision should be left to parents on religious, Ethical, And cultural grounds. "

10% of all circumcised men wish they were not circumcised. (6) This number, In my opinion, Is much lower than it will be when people actually think about this.

No. Our society should not condone mutilation of children against their will. This negatively effects millions of men directly.

4. Damage to Penis Sensitivity.

It my definition reduces the sensitivity of the male.

Let me explain how current science functions.

The foreskin is removed. They test the glans for sensitivity and find the sensitivity is not diminished.

This is similar to me saying if I cut off your pinky the sensitivity of your hand is not diminished. This is possibly true. The problem is there is a whole additional set of nerves that I have literally removed from you. This is not taken into account, Believe it or not, In all the studies that research this (7).

In addition, The methods by which they measure sensitivity are not necessarily without fault. On top of this, The tests that have measured for tactile sensitivity (not heat, Et cetera), I. E. What people normally mean by 'sensitivity' have all found that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (7)

This is not about ERECTILE FUNCTION. No one is saying that the penis 'functions' worse at the job of reproduction. If I numbed your hand's sensitivity your hand would still function at its primary function. It means that men who are circumcised will never feel pleasure on the level that uncircumcised men will. It is similar to FGM in its function - to disincentivize the population from enjoying sex.

Your studies are flawed. If you can point out some sources to me where these things have been taken into consideration, Please do so. I have read many studies. If you disagree that my contentions should be factors in said studies, Please say so. Please do not link additional studies that do not account for these things, Or agencies that don't recommend circumcision and pretend it is evidence in your favor.

To conclude,

Myself, And currently 10% of the circumcised males in the US wish we were in your scenario. We wish we were not mutilated without our consent. I will forever have a religious mark upon me I never agreed upon, No different than had I been branded.

To be as charitable and as fair as humanly possible - if easy regrowth of the foreskin is somehow a thing in the future, It may be more acceptable as a practice to combat UTIs and make hygiene easier in general. At that point, It would not be a mutilation with no reversal. I am, However, Arguing from today's standpoint.

Children should not be mutilated without their consent.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht

(Sources in Comments)
Adam_Godzilla

Con

"I submit that the hygiene excuse is nothing more than religious people trying to mark all of us without our consent. I submit that people should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves if they wish when they are old enough to make this decision willingly, And that religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without their consent. "

This resolution is not proper. It's convoluted. Pro is arguing two separate resolutions:

1) The hygiene theory is invalid for circumcision.
2) People should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves as adults.
3) Religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without the babies consent

I can't be possibly make arguments and then rebut arguments for all three resolutions. I can't possible be con to resolution 2 whilst being con to resolution 1 and they contradict.

Con then says that his resolution has been focused on babies the whole time. But nowhere was that made clear that that was the main resolution.

It looks like now I have to play devil's advocate.

Con's rebuttal:

"Is it justification to mutilate the genitals of a person against their will because the opposite sex might like how it looks better? The penis is an ugly thing. I don't think many consider it a beautiful thing. If the majority of Muslim men like how FGM makes the vagina look, Is that acceptable? "

FGM makes the vaginal closing smaller or nonexistant. So this argument is not able to be applied as an analogy. The penis is fully functional after procedure.


"(1) This is the case in 90% of boys at the age of 2. It CAN take some years for it to become fully retractable, But largely this happens fairly quickly. "

What about people like me? The 10%? And no there was no way for me retract my foreskin, It was biologically not meant to do that.

"But you're trying to take a situation that is 4 standard deviations from the norm and make it sound like it is normal. Anecdotes are sometimes worse than having no data at all. "

On balance, It's better if parents circumcise babies. Then everyone can reap the benefits instead of leaving behind the 10%.


"They cite reductions in STD spread in Africa as justification. This is correlation, Not causation for one. Secondly, This does not justify circumcision as a child with no consent. "

Ok so Pro's arguments in this whole section rely on the argument:

"Mutilating children without consent is not ok"

But doesn't explain why this is so. We do many things against the consent of children. Because children do not have consent. We can put them in school, Tell them to brush their teeth, And take them on holiday trips they don't want to go to. Consent of children is a murky topic for ethics philosophies. And I don't think Pro fully convinces me of the ethics.

I could not put in the source btw, Because DDO is broken.

"10% of all circumcised men wish they were not circumcised. (6) This number, In my opinion, Is much lower than it will be when people actually think about this. "


10% of all adults wish they never were forced into school, Should we just not let children go to school? (that statistic is made up, I'm making an example).


"If I numbed your hand's sensitivity your hand would still function at its primary function. It means that men who are circumcised will never feel pleasure on the level that uncircumcised men will. It is similar to FGM in its function - to disincentivize the population from enjoying sex. "

Statements like these are impossible to prove. Just because nerve cells are lost does not mean pleasure is reduced. Orgasms are not just based on skin sensitivity. I certainly cum a lot faster if I masturbate with shampoo and lotion than if I just use my hands raw. But my orgasm pleasure will be based on my imagination, My mood. If I cum quickly because of the shampoo, I feel disatisfied. My pleasure is reduced. I want to edge it out longer. I'm sure Pro will agree with this analogy.

"Your studies are flawed. If you can point out some sources to me where these things have been taken into consideration, Please do so. I have read many studies"

I don't agree with Pro. Losing nerve cells does not reduce penis sensitivity that much. My position is that there are no well done studies showing this. So I think Pro can't come up with studies that prove circumcision reduce penis sensitivity.

"Children should not be mutilated without their consent. "

Pro does not make any arguments based on moral philosophy. I assume his main case against mutilation is that mutilitating babies is harmful. Doing harmful is unethical. So therefore Pro must prove that it is harmful. As my rebuttals show, This is not necessarily the case.

Debate Round No. 2
Thoht

Pro

I'll leave it to the readers to decide whether or not my 2nd to last paragraph in R1 was clear enough on the debate. In my view, I made it more than clear this was about babies. Your protests that there is some contradiction are false. Hygiene theory need not be true for adults to be allowed to do what they wish with their bodies.

Con has not, Despite what he claims, Responded to any of my points. I am left with nothing to rebut. He has taken the sources I've cited and said "you haven't proved it" to each of them. I will simply have to sum up the points again. He may respond in R3 if he wishes, But I submit to the reader that he has not properly responded to the data in any of them.

1. Resolution

There is one resolution. Circumcision (commonly thought of not as adult, But as infant) is MGM and should be banned.

Hygiene is an excuse that supports Con if it could be proven to be true. It is not a resolution in and of itself, It is evidence that we debate over and support, Or not. The point going to the one who adequately supports their side.

Religious arguments would be the same. If you had chosen to, You could have tried to defend this practice on religious grounds. You decided not to and gave up this point. You chose to concede the point and defend circumcision by other means.

That adults may mutilate themselves is not contradictory. The initial debate was always over infant circumcision. I accept a mild amount of responsibility in not putting "infant" in the original title, Although it is already extremely long and the vast majority of society would think infant immediately. On top of this, I did completely clarify this in my 2nd to last paragraph in R1. While I could have been more clear, I submit my clarification in R1 addressed this in no unclear terms. You go on to present arguments that could be used in defense of infant circumcision while saying you don't like infant circumcision. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Devil's advocate or not, This was the resolution and position you chose.

2. FGM vs MGM analogy.

You did not address the point at all. No analogy is 100% the same. The question was whether or not Muslim men preferred the look of mutilated females or not. You go on to say FGM is different than MGM without engaging the argument at all. There was again, No question of functionality. It was about the opposite gender's preference.

Your argument here would have to be "any level of mutilation by the parents is acceptable as long as it doesn't impair functionality. " So parents could justify severing the full length of the penis and just leaving the head by the same logic. No one accepts this.

3. 10% whose foreskin does not detach by the age of 2.

I addressed this as well. Most DO detach by the age of 7. You are many standard deviations from the norm if your claim that yours never detached is true. In this case, It would be acceptable if your doctor agreed that was the case. Also, Your foreskin could be detached by the doctor without circumcision being required. This is not a point in your favor. Many people against Abortion allow for some exceptional cases to still occur. This is not a concession for the overall point of abortion.

No intellectual would make the statement that "Lets do action x to 100% of the population to make sure we don't have to address a miniscule problem 10% of the population would have. " Particularly when there's nothing preventing action X from occurring when that problem was found. There's no reason to give everyone an antidote when the antidote is only necessary for those who become poisoned.

4. Hygiene

Note how my opponent quotes my STD point and proceeds to entirely ignore it, Ignores my point on infant circumcision complication rates, And the comparison to the infant UTI rate of all males. He then goes on to a completely different point as if it addresses this. I submit to the readers that he has conceded this point completely by not addressing it.

5. Child Consent

Con has a small point here. Allow me to explain the difference.

We vaccinate children because we have extremely solid proof that the benefits outweigh the risks. The vast majority of doctors will recommend it. Societal benefit from herd immunity is clear. Circumcision is a procedure that is NOT recommended by Con's own linked agency, The APA. I have linked this source. The benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. The association knows this, And intentionally leaves out pertinent information to the contrary in an attempt to not stir the religious basket.

Child consent over vaccinations differs from child consent over circumcision. The benefits are at the very best unclear. Circumcision is a preventative measure at best. We are mutilating children without their consent for no clear reason outside of the parent's religious desires.

There is a problem with child consent. The parents do not get to do permanent irreparable injury to a child for no clear benefit and only religious excuses. It is not a question of child consent ALONE. Were we to have religious desire to remove a few unnecessary toes of their child, Or remove parts of their ears, We would frown upon that as a society. This differs not at all. Piercings in children largely will heal on their own. Mutilation lasts forever. This is not a parental preference choice. The child is a person. The child gets the choice. There is no legitimate reason to have this forced upon them.

Schooling is something the child will never be able to decide if he wants or not in an educated way without. Uninformed consent is not consent either. For you to have a shadow of a point you would have to be able to show that schooling harms children permanently in some way.

I analyzed your analogy and pointed out why the situations are different. It is possible that 10% or more of people regret that they went to school. There is much reason to think that not going to school would be infinitely worse for them.

So finally, Consent would be an issue for me if this debate was about Clear Good with Irreparable Harm versus Child Consent. It is not. This is little good to clear harm versus child consent. It is indefensible.

6. Sensitivity versus pleasure

This IS a problem in science. We have no units for pleasure. It is unclear how to measure it. It is very possible two people will report sex to feel 'very pleasurable' but feel different things.

Luckily for me, One of the sources I linked DID show that the foreskin is the most tactile sensitive part of a man's penis. This you have not contradicted with any support, And do not even quote or restate.

You have to be able to argue that me removing full portions of my skin would have no effect at all on the real pleasure felt by a man when I have evidence that directly points to the foreskin being the most sensitive part of a man's penis. "Just because nerve cells are lost doesn't mean pleasure is reduced. " The question is sensitivity, Not pleasure. Although I'm uncertain if you can not tie a link between the two. Sensitivity is undeniable, Or at least has not been by you.

If one man can feel a pleasure level of 10, And another man can feel a pleasure level of 9 after being circumcised, Both will report these levels to be the best possible feeling they can feel. That does not mean that level 10 stops being greater than level 9.

For your analogy, I would love to have the choice between using lotion and not. I cannot reattach my foreskin. How about this? Many men are not sensitive enough to orgasm via vaginal stimulation prior to female discomfort. This is called "Delayed Ejaculation" and is very real. I myself include myself among this number. There are various things to be done to assist with this, However, It is extremely arguable that the removal of the foreskin has contributed to this problem. Lack of sensitivity is a direct tie in to this issue. It is not so easy as "stop using lotion. " It is not so easy as one bad orgasm. It often takes years to resolve, If a resolution happens at all. There are other factors, But circumcision is clearly one.

To conclude,

I have cited your sources and countered them. You have not countered mine. You may disagree if you'd like but you are again arguing that I can remove portions of what you are and you'll feel not at all different. It is absurd when my evidence contradicts that position.

I have more than proven that circumcision is harmful. I leave the rest to the readers to decide.

Religious people have made circumcision the norm. My proposal seeks to reduce the damage caused by superstitious beliefs that are in themselves contradictory. I submit that the risk of Circumcision is greater than the reward. On top of that I submit that the consent of a person should be required for any situation where they are not in immediate danger. Even were circumcision to be superior for UTIs which hardly ever risk the life of the child, Even if they stop STD spreads in adults, None of this is reason to mutilate the majority of society when they have plenty of time to consider the benefits and choose it if they wish in their futures.

Although my opponent does not defend on religious grounds, I should note this: Whenever I go to urinate, Whenever I go to have sex, I see my penis and see a symbol, A brand, Of religion on my body permanently. This is not one bad orgasm. This is daily, Many times a day, Recurring. I am as anti-theist of a person as exists in this world. I am not alone.

Weigh the pain that would have come from a minuscule chance at a UTI in the first year of my life versus a lifetime of dealing with the pain of a religious brand upon my body. A lifetime of reduced sensitivity. A lifetime without a choice in the matter.

Parents do not have the right to mutilate their children beyond repair for reason of superstition and inadequate hygienic purposes. That the harm outweighs the good cannot be doubted.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Adam_Godzilla

Con

"Religious arguments would be the same. If you had chosen to, You could have tried to defend this practice on religious grounds. You decided not to and gave up this point. You chose to concede the point and defend circumcision by other means. "

I simply don't see the point. Religion should never be used to justify life changing events. That's just illogical. Pro may disagree with religion, But you don't need religion to see that male circumcision is a good thing.

"Although it is already extremely long and the vast majority of society would think infant immediately"

That is absolutely incorrect.

2. FGM vs MGM analogy.

That makes no sense. Such an analogy is pointless, Why would a man be attracted to a vagina that's all sewn up? That's why I related it back to functionality. I get what Pro is trying to say. He's discrediting my argument about male circumcised penises being attractive to women by fallaciously strawmanning my point. His entire argument, Was this:

"Is it justification to mutilate the genitals of a person against their will because the opposite sex might like how it looks better? The penis is an ugly thing. I don't think many consider it a beautiful thing. If the majority of Muslim men like how FGM makes the vagina look, Is that acceptable? "

Asking a question, "is it justification" is NOT an argument. Pro is not providing any reasoning to back yourself up. Let me throw it back at Pro, "why isn't it justified? " and for this Pro actually has to give a rebuttal. His example of muslim men liking FGM is not an argument. Whether or not it's acceptable for a person to have a vaginal preference is non of anyone's business.

That's why, I assumed all this time Pro is talking about functionality.

"Your argument here would have to be "any level of mutilation by the parents is acceptable as long as it doesn't impair functionality. "
That's not, As I've said, Even close to what my argument was.

3. 10% whose foreskin does not detach by the age of 2.

"Many people against Abortion allow for some exceptional cases to still occur. This is not a concession for the overall point of abortion. "
Huh? Where is Pro's argument here? Pro is just asserting his own opinions.
What Pro is trying to argue is we should ignore the 10% of people who can't detach their foreskin and go ahead and not circumcise. Pro is trying to use abortion as an analogy but this is a slippery slope of magnitudes I've not seen.

""Lets do action x to 100% of the population to make sure we don't have to address a miniscule problem 10% of the population would have. "
Pro makes the mistake that circumcision is an action to get somewhere. No, Circumcision is an action to PREVENT something. For example, Vaccination is used to prevent diseases. The risk of you contracting Malaria is let's say 10%, No doctor is going to say "screw it the chances are low so we don't need to vaccinate you". So Pro's argument that intellectuals wouldn't make this case is false. They do.

And circumcision prevents unfortunate individuals such as myself from not being able to retract the foreskin, Which in turn would make my penis smell, Which in turn gets me less blowjobs. Does that make sense reader?

But of course, That's not why I've won this debate. I've won because Pro fails to provide solid reasoning for his case. His case is weaker than mine. He needs to prove somehow that leaving the penis as it is, IS NECESSARY. He needs to show that the advantages overwhelmingly outweight the disbenefits. And as I've shown here, He's failed to do.

4. Hygiene.

"Note how my opponent quotes my STD point and proceeds to entirely ignore it, "

Pro was saying that the AAP's study on STD, That their conclusions were based on correlation and not causation. I don't see how this a strong contention. I didn't ignore it per se, But that I simply didn't see that an argument was made but merely my opponent providing his opinion.

Correlation studies are not invaluable. Climate change studies are based on correlations, Contrary to what people believe. It's why only 97% of scientists believe in man made climate change. RoyLatham (elo:7000) did an excellent debate on this.

I see a lot of debaters bring up the correlation argument. It's just not good enough. If you provide me with CONTRARY evidence and contrary correlations, Then that will be a solid argument.


"Ignores my point on infant circumcision complication rates, "
Then get better doctors. We're not talking about doctor competency, We're talking on the ethics of circumcision. Pro's argument would only be a valid point if it was impossible to successfully circumcise a person.


5. Child Consent

"The benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. The association knows this, And intentionally leaves out pertinent information to the contrary in an attempt to not stir the religious basket. "

Risks can be mitigated. It's not in the control of the AAP to hire better doctors.

"Child consent over vaccinations differs from child consent over circumcision. The benefits are at the very best unclear. Circumcision is a preventative measure at best. "

Yes, The seriousness of each case is definitely different. But so what? Why not circumcise babies? I've already shown that there's no disbenefits. And i would hate to imagine how many girls would reject me because of my uncircumcised penis. Thankfully, It's circumcised.

"The parents do not get to do permanent irreparable injury to a child for no clear benefit and only religious excuses. "

Circumcision is not an injury.

"Were we to have religious desire to remove a few unnecessary toes of their child, Or remove parts of their ears, We would frown upon that as a society. "

Pro provides his opinion again. But no argument or reasoning.

Actually, In certain tribes, They do do weird stuff similar to this. We just don't because it was never normal to do so. Also cutting toes isn't going to prevent let's say 10% of the population from incurring x disadvantage. So of course we don't do it.


"Piercings in children largely will heal on their own. Mutilation lasts forever. "

Not true. I never want to pierce my ears becus then I'll have holes in my ears. That's weird. They'll stop bleeding but piercings leave holes forever.


"This is not a parental preference choice. The child is a person. The child gets the choice. There is no legitimate reason to have this forced upon them. ".

Opinions. Opinions. Opinions.

"Schooling is something the child will never be able to decide if he wants or not in an educated way without. Uninformed consent is not consent either. For you to have a shadow of a point you would have to be able to show that schooling harms children permanently in some way. "

That wasn't my point. My point was just a rebuttal to Pro's point about breaking children's consent. I pointed that it was a weak argument since children do not have consent. I pointed out that society agrees with my point as we put children in schools against their consnet. Hence, Children do not have consent.


"It is possible that 10% or more of people regret that they went to school. There is much reason to think that not going to school would be infinitely worse for them. "
Pro confuses my point. My point wasn't an analogy, It was an example to an argument. I'm not actually trying to relate schools and circumcision.

6. Sensitivity versus pleasure

"Luckily for me, One of the sources I linked DID show that the foreskin is the most tactile sensitive part of a man's penis. This you have not contradicted with any support, And do not even quote or restate. "

Pro is still not getting my point. Sensitivity =/= pleasure. I am very ticklish (not actually) but just cus you tickle me, I'm not going to like it am I? My foot is sensitive. But I don't get pleasure from feathers caressing it. It's not painful. But it's not pleasurable.

sensitivity =/= pleasure.

=/= means does not equal.


"You have to be able to argue that me removing full portions of my skin would have no effect at all on the real pleasure felt by a man when I have evidence that directly points to the foreskin being the most sensitive part of a man's penis. "

I didn't say question Pro's study on penile sensitivity. I questioned pleasure.

And I gave irrefetuable evidence to this with a masturbation analogy. Any male reader who's reading this will 100% agree with me.

Then I gave examples of being ticklish. And then some more.

Sensitivity =/= pleasure.

"If one man can feel a pleasure level of 10, And another man can feel a pleasure level of 9 after being circumcised, Both will report these levels to be the best possible feeling they can feel. That does not mean that level 10 stops being greater than level 9. "

Pro refutes his own argument. Earlier Pro said: "We have no units for pleasure. It is unclear how to measure it. ". Pleasure for a man is subjective. Thus Pro's argument cannot be proven.

"For your analogy, I would love to have the choice between using lotion and not. I cannot reattach my foreskin. "

You can use lotion even when circumcised.

"How about this? Many men are not sensitive enough to orgasm via vaginal stimulation prior to female discomfort. This is called "Delayed Ejaculation" and is very real. "

Oh my condolences to Pro. DE, ED are not talked about enough today. For Pro's benefit, I recommend a technique known as abstinence whereby a man does not masturbate or look at arousing stimulation (porn) for 6 months to 2 years. Almost all adults with ED or DE problems will recover after 2 years.

"There are various things to be done to assist with this, However, It is extremely arguable that the removal of the foreskin has contributed to this problem. "

Perhaps. Many studies also indicate excessive porn use to be the cause. But I digress. We don't have enough studies.


And for me at least, I was not circumcised as a baby but as a child. And my penis is more sensitive now than back when I was a child. I actually don't like this as sex feels way too stimulating that it can sometimes be unpleasurable. And I also like to last long in sex.

Thank you for the debate.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Sorry Thoht for not voting properly. It would have been a draw if I did not counter dsjpk5's vote.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

What is that your argument for voting that way?
Of course you will not reply because you know yourself your reasons are not sufficient. You based a vote on my bad vote and have no reasoning behind it?
Okay. I am adding more votes until you give me a sufficient reason.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Con argues that the complication rates for procedures shouldn't be included in an analysis of whether or not that procedure is ethical. He says "get better doctors. "

I like to debate to actually look for the truth. To have points presented to me that go against my opinions so they can become more nuanced. This is why I discuss things with people whom I agree with.

If your only desire on this website is to win debates, I think less of you for it.

You accuse me of opinions yet I've provided sources for everything I've said. You've waived away my analogies, And even gone as far as saying complication rates don't matter.

Your claim that DE subsides within years is invalid. You know nothing about this, And have not provided a source for that claim which you would absolutely need.

Oh well. I have defended my case. It is up to the readers now.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Why does it let me post them separate but not together. *sigh*
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
6. Https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/morten-frisch/time-for-us-parents-to-reconsider-the-acceptability-of-infant-male-circumcision_b_7031972. Html
7. Https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/brian-earp/does-circumcision-reduce-_b_9743242. Html
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
4. Https://www. Doctorsopposingcircumcision. Org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/urinary-tract-infections/
5. Https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835667/
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
It's honestly not letting me post sources. I can't do anything with this website. I'm going to try them in batches.

1. Https://www. Drgreene. Com/qa-articles/cleaning-penis-intact-foreskin/
2. Https://www. Aap. Org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision. Aspx
3. 3 http://www. Aappublications. Org/content/33/9/1. 2. Full
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Adam_Godzilla

I don't see how you are going to win.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
Barbaric jewish practice. . Do we allow muslims to mutilate little girls? Why let christian and jews to mutilate little boys?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
ThohtAdam_GodzillaTied
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: I didn't find Adam_Godzilla's arguments very convincing. What I think Against could've done for me to vote for him is to talk about the banning part of the debate more. To me that was the only area that he could have won. Adam_Godzilla used a subjective thought, subjective experience and an appeal to authority in Round 1. I could give Pro the conduct point for Against failure to explain his stances but I'll put it down as not convincing. Don't know why against took up this debate because it was rigged from the start. dsjpk5 did not provide reasoning for his vote so I will be voting conduct to Thoht as a way in making sure my vote is not cancelled out by a vote that does not give sufficient reason. Hopefully Adam_Godzilla you will not get annoyed at this.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
ThohtAdam_GodzillaTied
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: Countering omars poor vote.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.