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

I apologize for my statement at the beginning. I do know that a penis is technically an organ and the glans is technically the skin around it. I was referring to a practice whereby you skin an entire human's body and keep going until they die of massive blood loss, but I was trying to tone it down. Now, you've gotten me saying all that gross crap. Happy now?Now let's get into the meat of it. Or whatever meat there was. You'll see what I mean.After-the-fact rationalizations:Whether or not it is one is inconsequential. My opponent does say that he doesn't do after-the-fact rationalizations, but he makes the mistake of discounting possibly correct information before getting to it. The fact that someone made a decision for the wrong reason doesn't actually mean the decision itself wasn't something one could also choose for the right reasons. In other words, things can be good without taking into consideration the intent of the doer (it doesn't always make the doer good, but the thing itself can be good).Additionally, my opponent feels the need to prove that we originally used circumcision to reduce sexual pleasure. Why is that? Because no one knew that until he said it. So none of us had the original intent in mind (well not many of us anyway). We just did studies to decide whether or not it was good, and we decided that it was.That dovetails nicely into my next point.The evidence that conflicts:My opponent has cited an abstract for something that's 20 pages long, and I as the opponent shouldn't be required to read through all of that to find out where the justification is. My opponent should have cited all of the necessary information during his round.Either way, guess what? I skimmed it to find research. Turns out, half of their claim for a need for new evidence was from an organization that has, since the original claim in 1999, decided that the benefits of circumcision outweigh any the minuscule risks [1]. Either way, I didn't find any actual data in there.This is the important thing: I cited a study, and my opponent cited the opinions of physicians. I have no idea if these physicians have done the studies to know what they're talking about, or if the procedures in other countries are generally more dangerous because they typically don't perform circumcisions. In fact, the whole thing could be completely irrelevant. I wouldn't know because I can only read the two paragraphs written in English, and there's no apparent data on it.However, I feel I can safely make the assumption that because doctors in other countries don't typically perform circumcisions, they are more dangerous abroad because the doctors have less experience, whereas in America all of the evidence points toward circumcisions being an entirely safe procedure with numerous health benefits and almost no risk (there's no such thing as something that's risk-free by the way).(We are talking about America by the way. My opponent started with American law, so we're debating in the context of America. Just wanted everyone to know that).This is the important part of everything that I said: I cited a report on a study, and my opponent cited a report on a consensus of opinions. Studies weigh more than words.In fact, the study concluded the exact opposite thing the Dutch concluded.Cost:Now we get into some fun information. We're going to analyze all kinds of cost principles and things of the sort. Did anyone click on that link {7} on my opponent's side? I did, and I put it at as my source [2]. I found some pretty interesting information. Apparently a circumcision costs a maximum of $50 for someone who's on insurance. My opponent is spelling things not-American so I'm not sure if he knows this, but everyone in America is legally required to have health insurance, and it looks like that's not going to change. So he attempted to take the highest number possible for someone who's not on insurance and incorrectly use that as the base cost. [2]So circumcisions in America cost between $0 and $50 according to my opponent's evidence. And we are talking about America if we start with citing American law. So now going on this cost basis the actual cost over 10 years to have circumcisions at max cost every single time is $1,000,000,000 or $1 billion.$4.4 billion > $1 billionSo yes, it is actually way more cost effective to have circumcisions at birth than to treat the diseases that follow.My opponent actually attempted to twist his evidence toward his side, when the reality of it falls to my side. Keep that in mind, readers.That last bit there at the end:So we're in agreement that women don't need to be circumcised. So that's a plus. So far in this debate, my opponent hasn't actually proven anything about health consequences regarding circumcision. I mean, I know tons of circumcised guys who had no problem using their penises – but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, my opponent cites a source that says circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure (and I thought, finally, a statistic), so I looked for the statistic in the source, and I found it, and I found where the statistic originally came from (because that article was an FAQ citing other things), and I found out that the text couldn't actually be accessed.So I looked it up, and I found scientist who decided the study was flawed because the way they tested it wasn't likely to produce accurate results, and it wasn't taken from a sample that could accurately produce results. [3]Let me give you the specifics:The sample was taken from Belgian men. Belgian men tend to only get circumcisions for medical purposes, which means their penises likely had something wrong with them to begin with. The sample becomes immediately tainted and unable to provide accurate results. [3]Further, the tests showed that the actual pleasure difference was there, but it was negligible. You can read the rest if you want, but those are the important parts. [3]As for the testing methods, they used questions to rate pleasure, and they used exceptionally wordy questions. Wordy questions are more likely to produce answers outside the realm of fact. [3]Dropped points:Don't think I didn't notice.I see you.My opponent has thus conceded that adult circumcisions are more complicated than baby circumcisions. This is also evidenced in the cost website (thanks for that by the way. I've never had such a helpful opponent). The cost for the baby without insurance was $850, but the cost for an adult was a minimum of $1,500, but it could get up to $3,000.Cost in medicine often denotes the difficulty level.My opponent has also conceded that the law applies differently for different situations. In other words, we cannot blanket laws over the entire US. They do mold to fit different situations.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[1] health.costhelper.com/circumcision.html[2] http://www.livescience.com...