Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

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