The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

circumcision has negative results it should not be allowed until the age of 18 or for health reasons

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Cogitatio-et-veritatis has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 100611
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that through our current research circumcision has had negative results on men. There have been results in which the foreskin has been cut too tight, it has taken away sensitivity, and it is done against the will of children. Doctors claim that it limits the spread of STI's and STD's but this claim should be considered false because how little of an affect it actually has.


I will gladly accept your debate and I wish you the best of luck!
Most of the research into circumcision is positive to men's health. Not just their spiritual (if you're into that) but studies conducted by the Mayo clinic which is a credible source shows that circumcision at a young age can do the following: decrease the risk of STI, STD, penile cancer, and phimosis. None of which sounds pleasant as a man. Circumcision can also provide a better opportunity for genital hygiene keeping the old six-gun clean.

Debate Round No. 1


The first thing this article claims is that there is easier hygiene for males. Though this may be true the foreskin is actually fused to the head of the penis until puberty so there for a child can easily learn to properly clean his penis as he grows. Saying that a penis is easier to clean so a child foreskin should be cut is equivalent to saying that a child's ears should cut because it would be easier to clean behind the ear.

The second claim is that there is a decreased risk of UTI's (Urinary tract infections) This is true as well but, if you take a look at the research there is only a 0.9% difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males. Circumcised males have a 0.1% chance Uncircumcised males have a 1% chance. though it is 10x more likely that a circumcised male will get a UTI it is still a low chance. A Japanese study of 603 boys who were not circumcised did not find one case of UTI.

The third claim Is there is less of a chance for a STI to form. There is also a study showing that circumcision do does not prevent some of the STI's claimed. Cleanliness is a major contributor in theses studies as well.

Apparently there is also a higher risk of penile cancer but, there are no American studies of the incidence of penile cancer and its association with circumcision status. Penile cancer is rare, and the estimated American incidence is about 1 per 100,000. This rate is also lower in other countries.

Now lets talk about the cons of Circumcision.
1 off its barbaric as late as 1986 no anesthesia was used on newborns. but if we focus on the now no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants. Infants even show signs of PTSD due to circumsion.

2 there a penile complications later in life. The skin can be cut too tight and when puberty happens a the penis grows it can be painful.

3 pubic hair can grow up the shaft making it intercourse painful to a males partner if shaven.

4 callused skin will occur on the head of the penis due to friction of clothes. Callused and damage skin has been know to be less sensitive. there have been reports where men claim to feel less sensitivity when circumcised later in life.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Capitalistslave 4 years ago
I feel there might be one other instance that you may agree that circumcision should be allowed: if the minor wants it to be done. Do you agree if the minor wants it to be done, that it should be allowed?

If not, then I suppose I will debate you. I just wanted to make sure you did/n't have this view before I accepted and then started arguing for this.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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