The practice of circumcising babies should be discontinued

-- Introduction -- Ironically, Pro has the audacity to criticize referring to one particular person's research, yet the vast majority of his information comes from ONE source and ONE book: Ronald Goldman's 'The Hidden Trauma.' Here's a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. The difference is that Pro has given us merely one source of information that I cannot check or review (I don't own the book), whereas I've named the specific studies Brian Morris used for my opponent to look up and verify online. Meanwhile, we have absolutely NO idea how or where Goldman derived his data. Additionally, it is entirely false that Morris has only published online and not presented peer reviewed academic research! His data was published by Wiley Periodicals Inc., which absolutely does scientific peer review [A]. This is a blatantly failed attempt by my opponent to discredit my sources. -- Rebuttal -- Like Sieben, I had assumed that Pro wouldn't be arguing against the health benefits of circumcision, but rather the parent's moral (not legal) right to make the choice - hence my religious argument. This was an honest mistake on my part, though nevertheless I've demonstrated that there are indeed various health benefits, and no significant damage as a result enough to sway a parent to NOT make this decision. My position has been that it is fine one way or another to choose circumcision, thus negating the resolution. 1. Health Benefits Looking back on R2, the only thing Pro said was that Goldman allegedly found no health benefits to circumcision. As you can see, there was nothing for me to respond to as he simply sourced a page from Goldman's book that supposedly says this. To refute, I presented dozens of benefits with sources and scientific studies naming the various benefits they've found, as well as cited the scholarly references noting how this information was gathered. Moreover, it becomes readily apparent that my opponent did not bother reading these sources, as his defense is completely shattered within them. For instance Pro alleges biased results; he says the studies do not consider the number of sex partners one has in determining the validity of circumcision's effect on preventing STDs. On the contrary, my source [4] from the last round explained, "Since HIV risk is lower in circumcised men who have more frequent, as opposed to less frequent, sexual exposure, it has been suggested that repeated contact may induce additional protection via an immune response to subinfectious inoculums. This may involve the small area of exposed urethral mucosa, or more likely the meatus, which unlike the urethra does contain a small number of HIV receptors." In other words, this source already debunked my opponents claim; it specifically takes into consideration the number of sexual partners one's had, and makes a case for why the FORESKIN ITSELF and not culture or promiscuity affects the rate one could easily spread or catch an STD. In other words, Pro's rebuttal completely fails. Another example - Pro claims that "there's no valid reason why foreskin would increase [STD] transmission rate." Again my presented sources have already eradicated this defense. Source [4] explains, "The warm moist environment under the prepuce favours bacterial replication. The delicate inner lining's mucosal nature and risk of tearing it and the frenulum during intercourse are other factors. Chancroid is more likely to present on the inner and outer prepuce, whereas syphilis and HSV-2 tend to infect the genitalia more widely." This seems to significantly discredit Pro's assertion that "There's no valid explanation for why foreskin increases STD risk by a large magnitude" considering I just presented many valid explanations. Once again there is blatant evidence explaining why the FORESKIN SPECIFICALLY negatively impacts one's protection against various STDs, STIs, etc. As such, we have absolutely no reason to accept Pro's accusation that there is no proof of the circumcision itself being responsible for protection, as various sources I've presented describe completely contrary. I have presented indisputable data (including photos) - not refuted by Pro - that circumcisions are inherently medically beneficial. 2A. Infant Pain I've explained that sometimes we endure pain for overall benefits; Pro has done nothing to combat this except say not using anesthetics is "barbaric," despite his own note that often using anesthetics on infants can be dangerous (thus it's safer to not risk using them). 2B. Memory - Pro drops this argument. 2C. Post-Op Studies I said that Goldman hasn't given one shred of evidence that the infant's fussiness was due to circumcision; Pro never responded. In other words my contention remains unrefuted, so we have no reason to accept Pro's statistic. While Pro says that his "Goldman source" (which again was merely a page number that neither myself nor the audience can refer to for analysis - significantly hindering the extent of my rebuttal) proves that circumcision IS traumatic. This is a reference and not an argument. Meanwhile, in the last round I presented 3 various facts/sources to combat this notion [13, 14, 15] which Pro simply says are mistaken. I think it's obvious here that there is no conflicting information, and just a my source vs. your source contention. However the difference is that I gave THREE studies for everyone to check and verify my claims, whereas Pro has given us one reference we can't check. 3. Complications Pro says my statistics proving virtually NO complications from this procedure come from hospitals that use trained doctors for it. Of course this was the exact point I was trying to make! Circumcision is generally completely harmless if done under safe conditions by trained experts. Just because sometimes non-experts perform these things currently doesn't mean it SHOULD be that way; rather I was noting that there is nothing wrong with a parent opting for this choice under the experience of a professional. Additionally, just because a rabbi must perform the ritual according to Jewish tradition does NOT mean the rabbi cannot become professionally trained, negating Pro's notion that I have presented a contradiction here in any way whatsoever. 4. Hygiene Pro says this study refutes itself; while one figure might be misleading at first glance, indeed the study proves that circumcised men typically have overall better penile hygiene [B]. 5. Useless Foreskin? Admittedly I did not respond to Pro's specific arguments here; character limits had me rely on posting sources instead of arguments that discredited his claims. However the only thing he really said was that foreskin MAY increase sexual pleasure or the illusion of having a bigger penis. This does not provide any significant medical advantage - certainly not compared to the proven medical benefits of circumcision. 6. Improper Framing Pro makes the random claim that female clitoral mutilation is equivalent to male circumcision. Not only do I completely disagree, but I don't have to argue this as it is impermissible, as Pro pointed out, to make any new arguments in the final round. This is not what he originally said regarding the prefix "un," which I have already negated and Pro ignored. 7. Choice Pro says adults who have chosen circumcision later on in life regret it. This has no bearing on the opinion of those who haven't endured the process later on in life. Also, extend my arguments regarding parents making significant life choices for their children in many other ways. 8. Long-Term Effects I asked Pro to give ONE other source besides Goldman that proved long-term negative effects, and Pro completely dropped the argument, meaning no additional evidence was able to be presented in his favor. *** Thanks for the debate! [A] http://tinyurl.com... [B] http://tinyurl.com...