Circumcision without absolute medical necesity is genital mutilation and should be banned:

I'm going to break this debate into the important parts.Evidence:Or lack thereof.My opponents response to my quantifiable evidence was the debate equivalent of saying "nuh-uh." Why might my opponent feel the need to oppose my evidence with unrealistic analogies or arguments not grounded in research? Perhaps because the evidence points to my side. He also exaggerated some of my points. For example, I never said that circumcision doesn't reduce pleasure. I said the reduction in pleasure is negligible. Certainly not something that warrants the risks.He also just denied without evidence that circumcision has benefits. I remind you, he doesn't come forward with data or evidence. Just an opinion. His opinion certainly doesn't outweigh that of people who actually did the studies. This opinion also affects him in a negative way, because now he is unable to argue against other points by fact of having such a strong opinion not based in research.So here is the point he cannot see:An increase in circumcisions may decrease overall medical expenses. My opponent assumes that the evidence doesn't work both ways. If we stop having circumcisions, we gain an additional few billion dollars in expenses (it does say additional, which means to add on top of the current status). So what if increasing circumcisions has an overall decrease in medical expenses?Even still, it looks like the $50 may just be the allowable expense. Most of the expense for a circumcision is a facility fee. It's an imaginary cost that won't actually be reflected in the economy. The insurance is just a leveraging organization that puts a cap on the charge for that, since most insurance companies recognize circumcision as a standard procedure.Either way, my opponent comes with no substantial evidence on whether or not circumcision reduces medical costs later on, while I come forward saying it does, using multiple sources. So from a basis of research, he doesn't have any ground to stand on. Law:My opponent sort of dropped this till the end, but his ultimate conclusion, after picking out whatever parts of law or personal opinion he needed for support, is that circumcision is in blatant violation of US law.Coming back to reality, circumcision is in no violation of US law. First of all, it's not illegal, so by extension it's not in violation of US law (that's how it works right?). Second of all, males and females are in a different situation, which we can conclude from the preponderance of evidence. Because it is beneficial for males to be circumcised, it makes sense that it would be legal. It is unhealthy for women to be circumcised without medical need. That means that it's reasonable it's illegal for them. My opponent can't oppose that, because he didn't provide any evidence.Unreasonable analogies:Sure, I'll address these. There's no reason they should bear any weight. While my side supports circumcision is medically beneficial for males and is most reasonable to do a few days after birth, my opponent brings up all these other things that have no grounding in any research or even within the consideration set of a reasonable person (remember the reasonable person standard from the beginning). Since a reasonable person can say they would recommend circumcision but not euthanasia for the sake of reducing the chance of a urinary tract infection, we can say that the latter has no place in this debate. The fact that my opponent used this as an actual argument shows you how desperate he is to cast doubt on my side.Morality:So I assumed we were working with morality based in law, because of the beginning, but apparently we're not.Actually, my opponent never established a moral system other than through law or the right of personal property?I'm not sure. It was never clear what actually makes something morally good. That's why I've been advocating from a utilitarian standpoint. It's the most common way to determine when something is right in non-philosophy based debates (this debate I am not philosophy based because we never discussed a specific philosophy). Anyway, utilitarianism basically just says that something is right if it has a net benefit. So yes, the fact hat circumcision has a net benefit does make it morally right. I'm not going to go into depth on utilitarianism and why it's the favorable position. Quite honestly, my opponent started an entirely new debate in the last round, which is often revered as rude or illegal. But in my case, it just shows you something. My opponent has not kept constant on much throughout the debate. I have had a simple conclusion from simple research throughout all my arguments. The benefits outweigh the costs. The only cost my opponent names specifically is an infringement of private property. This is only perceived, as under US law it is not, and honestly, it's only a big deal if you make it one. There are zero consequences other than a perceived violation of property, and I think that's really what my opponent cares about. But the practice is so commonplace that it's considered as standard a procedure as vaccinations for the sake of giving that male a healthier life.So because my side is actually supported by evidence and seems to have a net benefit, we can reasonably conclude that my opponent did not fulfill his burden of proof. A burden of proof requires actually proving something, and proving something means backing it up with evidence or solid reasoning.Summary:Benefits:I substantiated my claims, and my opponent did not.Law:My opponent's argument comes primarily from opinion, but my analysis of the law remains unchallenged. Cost:My opponent isn't really concerned with cost, he's just debating me every way he can. So if I win it great, and if you agree with him, it's not really part of his main concern anyway.Morality:My opponent argues from some well-known standpoints, but I gave a metric with a coherent philosophy that agrees with the law, the scientific community, and the majority of America.Facts:My opponent did not prove my side to be non-factual, but I did prove my opponent's side to be non-factual. The evidence weighs far more heavily on my side.That's what really matters in the end, and it looks like my opponent just didn't do the research he needed to do. Thanks for reading.