Circumcision Should be Criminalized

So we are onto the final round. Firstly I have to express my disappointment and surprise with the issues raised in my opponents Conduct section and deal with those straight away before going into my final summary. “As I clarified in the comment section, it should be evident, when taking my first round as a whole, that I am not arguing against all circumcisions (i.e., medically necessary ones). I'm afraid I have to point out that my opponent is playing semantics when he claims I am arguing all circumcision on children should be criminalized. Semantics were explicitly forbade in round 1 and Con should therefore loss the conduct point.” Firstly there was no indication in the comments before or in fact since I accepted the challenge that this debate referred only to ritual circumcision without pain medication. Secondly I clearly stated my position and what the debate was about in my acceptance Round 1 “In light of the video posted by my opponent I would also like to state my personal position before I begin with my arguments: I am an atheist and have not been circumcised. I find it highly distressing to watch the video and would assume most people would. My opponent has stated that all circumcision, no matter how it is performed, should be criminalised. ” I stated explicitly in every single round that I was also against ritual circumcision. My opponent never countered this or contacted me in any way to set the scope of the debate to include only ritual circumcision. Thirdly the resolution is “Circumcision should be criminalised”. This is no way limits circumcision to only religious circumcision. Fourthly and most damning is that one of my opponents first arguments in Round 1 is Circumcision is an Immoral Religious Ritual in Disguise. If we were only discussing religious circumcision this argument is completely pointless as we would have already agreed we were discussing only religious circumcision. Given all the above I can only assume my opponent is seeking to change the resolution to “Religious Circumcision should be Criminalised” in the face on the strong arguments against his original resolution. To have not raised this point before final summaries shows it was not his original intent to debate only religious circumcision and hence his semantics argument is not valid. Conduct: I find the accusation of playing semantics bad conduct and therefore Pro should lose the conduct point. He also continues to use inflammatory examples and words/phrases such as torture, penis sawed off, religious fanactics, misinformed quack, monster’s own torture chamber etc to gain sympathy for his position despite failing to respond to my case where I showed that circumcision does not meet the definition of torture. Final Rebuttals Health Benefits: My opponent claims that I have failed to rebut his argument that “condoms are a better prevention to HIV that circumcision”. That’s because I wholeheartedly agree. The point is that circumcision helps. It reduces the probability of catching HIV in the same way condoms do though obviously condoms have a much higher rate (99%). My opponent also failed to rebut all the other health benefits listed in Round 1 other than saying most can be prevented by washing or dealt with after contracted. This does not however refute that there ARE health benefits. Necessary Body Parts: My opponent claims I didn’t refute the logic that “the fewer body parts the better”. Well this is a different debate totally, but actually I would agree to the following statement “the fewer useless body parts the better”. My opponent failed to show a single positive use of a foreskin. He also failed to show how circumcision was any different to a tonsillectomy or appendectomy. Instead he tried to show that breast should be removed as 1.Breast-milk can be replaced with formula 2. Sexual Arousal can occur without breasts 3. Aesthetics are not important in the face of the potential health benefit. He provided no supporting evidence for any of the above statements. He also claimed “the evidence that circumcision has any health benefits is virtually nonexistent”. Please refer to my Round 1 where I show the well documented benefits of removing the foreskin from an impartial medical source. Criminalise Circumcision because it is already illegal Argument: My opponent claims I have not responded to this. I have responded to this is detail in Round 2. See Rebut 4 in round 2. The basic argument being that current law or lack thereof is poor reason for implementation in other jurisdictions. Parents Responsibility: Instead of countering the argument Pro makes the mistake of questioning the parents’ beliefs (i.e. the belief of Hell has “no foundation in reality” and refers to them as deluded. While not only bad conduct my opponent has failed to address the argument. The point is the parents are acting in the best interest of their child in accordance with their understanding. i.e. it is not a form of torture or punishment administered by the parent. Summary: 1. Circumcision can be down without undue pain or suffering. Proved. Opponent agreed that currently 4% are.2. There are some health benefits from being circumcised. Argued: I believe my sources and evidence outweigh Cons3. The parents choose to have their children circumcised as they believe this is beneficial to the child (whether this be due to health reasons or religious reasons). Dropped by my opponent4. The parents have a right to exercise their religious customs provided it doesn’t harm others. Dropped by my opponent5. The foreskin is not a required human part. i.e. Ones quality of life is not affected by its removal. Dropped by my opponent Given that BOP rested with my opponent and the above I urge a vote to CON. Conduct: Please see above arguments Sources: All sources I provided were independent sources with no ulterior motives. Though Pro used 29 sources compared to my 11, I provided exactly enough sources to show the validity of my contention and not more just for that sake of building source numbers. Given this I urge either a vote for CON based on bias of Pro sources or a Tie. Grammar and Spelling: Please mark as a tie Thanks I would also like to express my thanks to my opponent and hope we can have another fruitful debate again.