Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

"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. " I simply don't see the point. Religion should never be used to justify life changing events. That's just illogical. Pro may disagree with religion, But you don't need religion to see that male circumcision is a good thing. "Although it is already extremely long and the vast majority of society would think infant immediately" That is absolutely incorrect. 2. FGM vs MGM analogy. That makes no sense. Such an analogy is pointless, Why would a man be attracted to a vagina that's all sewn up? That's why I related it back to functionality. I get what Pro is trying to say. He's discrediting my argument about male circumcised penises being attractive to women by fallaciously strawmanning my point. His entire argument, Was this:"Is it justification to mutilate the genitals of a person against their will because the opposite sex might like how it looks better? The penis is an ugly thing. I don't think many consider it a beautiful thing. If the majority of Muslim men like how FGM makes the vagina look, Is that acceptable? "Asking a question, "is it justification" is NOT an argument. Pro is not providing any reasoning to back yourself up. Let me throw it back at Pro, "why isn't it justified? " and for this Pro actually has to give a rebuttal. His example of muslim men liking FGM is not an argument. Whether or not it's acceptable for a person to have a vaginal preference is non of anyone's business. That's why, I assumed all this time Pro is talking about functionality. "Your argument here would have to be "any level of mutilation by the parents is acceptable as long as it doesn't impair functionality. "That's not, As I've said, Even close to what my argument was. 3. 10% whose foreskin does not detach by the age of 2. "Many people against Abortion allow for some exceptional cases to still occur. This is not a concession for the overall point of abortion. "Huh? Where is Pro's argument here? Pro is just asserting his own opinions. What Pro is trying to argue is we should ignore the 10% of people who can't detach their foreskin and go ahead and not circumcise. Pro is trying to use abortion as an analogy but this is a slippery slope of magnitudes I've not seen. ""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. "Pro makes the mistake that circumcision is an action to get somewhere. No, Circumcision is an action to PREVENT something. For example, Vaccination is used to prevent diseases. The risk of you contracting Malaria is let's say 10%, No doctor is going to say "screw it the chances are low so we don't need to vaccinate you". So Pro's argument that intellectuals wouldn't make this case is false. They do. And circumcision prevents unfortunate individuals such as myself from not being able to retract the foreskin, Which in turn would make my penis smell, Which in turn gets me less blowjobs. Does that make sense reader? But of course, That's not why I've won this debate. I've won because Pro fails to provide solid reasoning for his case. His case is weaker than mine. He needs to prove somehow that leaving the penis as it is, IS NECESSARY. He needs to show that the advantages overwhelmingly outweight the disbenefits. And as I've shown here, He's failed to do. 4. Hygiene. "Note how my opponent quotes my STD point and proceeds to entirely ignore it, "Pro was saying that the AAP's study on STD, That their conclusions were based on correlation and not causation. I don't see how this a strong contention. I didn't ignore it per se, But that I simply didn't see that an argument was made but merely my opponent providing his opinion. Correlation studies are not invaluable. Climate change studies are based on correlations, Contrary to what people believe. It's why only 97% of scientists believe in man made climate change. RoyLatham (elo:7000) did an excellent debate on this. I see a lot of debaters bring up the correlation argument. It's just not good enough. If you provide me with CONTRARY evidence and contrary correlations, Then that will be a solid argument. "Ignores my point on infant circumcision complication rates, "Then get better doctors. We're not talking about doctor competency, We're talking on the ethics of circumcision. Pro's argument would only be a valid point if it was impossible to successfully circumcise a person. 5. Child Consent"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. "Risks can be mitigated. It's not in the control of the AAP to hire better doctors. "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. "Yes, The seriousness of each case is definitely different. But so what? Why not circumcise babies? I've already shown that there's no disbenefits. And i would hate to imagine how many girls would reject me because of my uncircumcised penis. Thankfully, It's circumcised. "The parents do not get to do permanent irreparable injury to a child for no clear benefit and only religious excuses. "Circumcision is not an injury. "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. "Pro provides his opinion again. But no argument or reasoning. Actually, In certain tribes, They do do weird stuff similar to this. We just don't because it was never normal to do so. Also cutting toes isn't going to prevent let's say 10% of the population from incurring x disadvantage. So of course we don't do it. "Piercings in children largely will heal on their own. Mutilation lasts forever. "Not true. I never want to pierce my ears becus then I'll have holes in my ears. That's weird. They'll stop bleeding but piercings leave holes 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. ". Opinions. Opinions. Opinions. "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. "That wasn't my point. My point was just a rebuttal to Pro's point about breaking children's consent. I pointed that it was a weak argument since children do not have consent. I pointed out that society agrees with my point as we put children in schools against their consnet. Hence, Children do not have consent. "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. "Pro confuses my point. My point wasn't an analogy, It was an example to an argument. I'm not actually trying to relate schools and circumcision. 6. Sensitivity versus pleasure"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. "Pro is still not getting my point. Sensitivity =/= pleasure. I am very ticklish (not actually) but just cus you tickle me, I'm not going to like it am I? My foot is sensitive. But I don't get pleasure from feathers caressing it. It's not painful. But it's not pleasurable. sensitivity =/= pleasure. =/= means does not equal. "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. "I didn't say question Pro's study on penile sensitivity. I questioned pleasure. And I gave irrefetuable evidence to this with a masturbation analogy. Any male reader who's reading this will 100% agree with me. Then I gave examples of being ticklish. And then some more. Sensitivity =/= pleasure. "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. "Pro refutes his own argument. Earlier Pro said: "We have no units for pleasure. It is unclear how to measure it. ". Pleasure for a man is subjective. Thus Pro's argument cannot be proven. "For your analogy, I would love to have the choice between using lotion and not. I cannot reattach my foreskin. "You can use lotion even when circumcised. "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. "Oh my condolences to Pro. DE, ED are not talked about enough today. For Pro's benefit, I recommend a technique known as abstinence whereby a man does not masturbate or look at arousing stimulation (porn) for 6 months to 2 years. Almost all adults with ED or DE problems will recover after 2 years. "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. "Perhaps. Many studies also indicate excessive porn use to be the cause. But I digress. We don't have enough studies. And for me at least, I was not circumcised as a baby but as a child. And my penis is more sensitive now than back when I was a child. I actually don't like this as sex feels way too stimulating that it can sometimes be unpleasurable. And I also like to last long in sex. Thank you for the debate.