The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

All sources are biased- all of my opponents sources came from groups who support circumcision, the issue arises when a given source makes a claim without proof, or a claim that is demonstrably falseWhile this could be an interesting philisophical debate to get into, even if this argument is accepted is is clear that different people and organisations are less biased than others. After all if you want to find out about the Holocaust, you don't go a neo-nazi website. There are plenty of neutral options. Pro's reliance on extremist non-representative anti-circumcision organisations rather than the neutral parties I've been relying upon, like scientific studies and medical organisations, shows the poor backing for his point of view - especially when his sources don't have any proof besides unevidenced opinion or actually say the opposite of what he claims.The claim made by this site was based on adding up how sensitive each part of a man's penis was, and comparing then subtracting the sensitivity of all parts removed in circumcision- these claims are completely based in fact. The sensitivity levels for each part of the penis, that this site based its claim off of, are entirely factual.Here Pro claims that he provides details of the study his R4 source was talking about. Of course, it only proves that Pro was looking at fake news.Pro's R4 article he is defending talks about a newly released study without giving any details of what this study is or that it actually exists. It was posted in 2013. [1] The new article he says provides details about the study is from 2007. [2] Either it is not the study being talked about or his article misrepresented the truth to try and fake new research having been made by reposting about a 6 year old study as if it is new. Either outcome means Pro's R4 source is fake news.Now to look at the study referenced in his new R5 source [2]. It does not actually show that men have a detracted ability to reach orgasm or receive pleasure from sex. In this case it actually refers to the ability to detect whether their penis has been gently touched with a fine-tool intrument. Maybe there are some men who place great pride in their ability to detect whether their penis has been prodded by a fine tool. I don't know.What I do know is that when studies have actually examined circumcised men's ability to acheive pleasure in sex, no difference has been found. In fact in the metastudy collating 10 seperate peer reviewed studies I posted in R4, no difference was found. [3] Here's another metastudy of 36 peer reviewed academic studies which "medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction" [4].Hell, there are even studies which show "Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm" because when a lot of studies are conducted on a subject some will come in a little high and some a little low.In R5 Pro has finally managed to produce an actual study referencing circumcision in a negative way. However it doesn't really support his case as it doesn't reference the kind of sensitivity being talked about and it is shown to be irrelevent in the face of the massive overwhelming scientific consensus which contradicts him and supports me as embodied in the dozens of studies referenced in the supplied metastudies.The University of California has confirmed this reality as well.Pro's source makes no claim for a loss of sensitivity, which is calls "nearly impossible to determine" but DOES back up my claims by saying "Circumcising males in many poverty-stricken African countries could prevent two million new cases of HIV and up to 300,000 or more deaths within the next 10 years".Furthermore, my opponent falsely claims that circumcision does not have any bad effects, but this is, again, simply not true. As Psychologist Darcia Narvaez Ph.D. statedPro provides a quote from an article in a general interest psychology magazine - again, not an actual peer reviewed study that has stood up to any kind of academic scrutiny - which quotes two sources: Gil, E. (2006). Helping abused and traumatized children.andVan der Kolk, B.A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 401-408.The former is a book so isn't readily available, but a search on google books shows the word circumcision does not appear in it even once. [7] The latter makes absolutely no reference to circumcision. [8] Unable to provide actual study and research to back up his points, Pro has once again relied on secondary sources which make false claims about what the research actually shows.Further, it turns out that the studies which my opponent points to were immensely flawed, and contradicted by numerous other studies which showed the opposite"Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008)."Unfortunately for Pro, I did not reference these three studies mentioned at any point in this debate. However in relation to HIV prevention I did reference in R3 the World Health organisation's sumarry of more than 193 peices of research and study into Male circumcision. [9] Meanwhile Pro provides no proof that the three random studies I never referenced are actually false and compared to my collection of over a hundred studies, pro provides only one study (Connolly 2002) which finds "When restricted to sexually active men, the difference that remained did not reach statistical significance (8.9% v. 13.6%, p = 0.08."[9] The p value is the chance that these results came by due to random chance [10]. In this case a p value of 0,08 means there is a 8% chance that the the results where due to chance and a 92% chance that they are due to male circumcision offering protection from HIV. Pro fails to realise this because scientific studies typically aim for a 95%+ certainty, so although it is not adequate for scientific standards and the conclusion comes down as negative by the standards of a debate even his cherrypicked unrepresenetative study still shows a strong liklihood that circumcision prevents HIV!Also let's not forget that, as mentioned earlier, his 2nd source PRO provided in R5 says that circumcision prevents HIV! This is false- Sweden and Denmark have stated that all non-medical circumcision should be banned,False. Pro's own source states one medical organisation within each country suggested it, not that either country's legislature or judiciary ever agreed or instituted any ban. Also noteworthy is that again according to Pro's own source the Swdedish suggestion which was never taken up would still have allowed the circumcision of minors, albeit with restrictions on 12+ and with the child's consent.[11]Milton Friedman is a very respected source, he was the winner of both a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of freedom-For his work in economics. He isn't a biologist or doctor. I respect a great many people but just because Stephen Hawking knows a lot about physics doesn't mean I would use him as a source when it comes to morality and medical procedures. it is just a completely random person to quote even if his quote in any way supported your argument (which it doesn't).That quote does not back my opponents stance- Milton Friedman stated that, though parents should be left in charge of their children, this does not allow hem to inflict harm on them or to infringe their liberties, as they are their own person with their own rights. Circumcision constitutes a violation of those rights, the right to bodily autonomy, genital integrity, and property rights. This is not a legitimate use of parental rights. Wrong.Pro appears not to have read the quote, which is par for the course. He claimed Friedman says: "this does not allow hem to inflict harm on them"This is false. As per the R4 quote he only objects to the most extreme forms of harm, like torture and slavery. There is no mention of objection to more routine forms of harm that parents might subject children to, from spanking to circumcision to dentistry (which is very comparable to circumcision in that it has overall health benefits but can have short-term pain). Friedman make the point that EXTREME violations of liberty are not allowed. As circumcision is viewed around the world as a routine operation by all but an extreme minority, there is no reason to think Friedman supports Pro's view and every reason to think he supports mine.Pro also adds "or to infringe their liberties".Again, this is obviously false. As per the full quote I provide in R4 Friedman specifically says "We do not believe in freedom for madmen or children". Only the most extreme examble of violating liberties are listed as wrong, not circumcision.SUMMARYAs shown, the majority of Pro's own evidence actually contradicts him and what doesn't contradict him is irrelevent and doesn't help his claims.He has failed to respond to a number of points, dropping the arguments on the pain that female circumcision causes in comparison to male circumcision (which he relied on to make his case in R2 and R3), on the applicability of the rights embodied in the universal decleration of human rights and on the applicability of US federal law. The last point is especially damning as by his own logic (as shown in my R2) circumcision should be legal.Please vote Con.[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...[4] https://goo.gl...[5] https://goo.gl...[6] https://goo.gl...[7] https://goo.gl...[8] https://goo.gl...[9] https://goo.gl...[10] https://goo.gl...[11] https://goo.gl...[12] https://goo.gl...