Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation and should be Banned

"I submit that the hygiene excuse is nothing more than religious people trying to mark all of us without our consent. I submit that people should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves if they wish when they are old enough to make this decision willingly, And that religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without their consent. "This resolution is not proper. It's convoluted. Pro is arguing two separate resolutions:1) The hygiene theory is invalid for circumcision. 2) People should be allowed to genitally mutilate themselves as adults. 3) Religious parents should not be allowed to deem their babies religious without the babies consentI can't be possibly make arguments and then rebut arguments for all three resolutions. I can't possible be con to resolution 2 whilst being con to resolution 1 and they contradict. Con then says that his resolution has been focused on babies the whole time. But nowhere was that made clear that that was the main resolution. It looks like now I have to play devil's advocate. Con's rebuttal:"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? "FGM makes the vaginal closing smaller or nonexistant. So this argument is not able to be applied as an analogy. The penis is fully functional after procedure. "(1) This is the case in 90% of boys at the age of 2. It CAN take some years for it to become fully retractable, But largely this happens fairly quickly. "What about people like me? The 10%? And no there was no way for me retract my foreskin, It was biologically not meant to do that. "But you're trying to take a situation that is 4 standard deviations from the norm and make it sound like it is normal. Anecdotes are sometimes worse than having no data at all. "On balance, It's better if parents circumcise babies. Then everyone can reap the benefits instead of leaving behind the 10%. "They cite reductions in STD spread in Africa as justification. This is correlation, Not causation for one. Secondly, This does not justify circumcision as a child with no consent. "Ok so Pro's arguments in this whole section rely on the argument:"Mutilating children without consent is not ok"But doesn't explain why this is so. We do many things against the consent of children. Because children do not have consent. We can put them in school, Tell them to brush their teeth, And take them on holiday trips they don't want to go to. Consent of children is a murky topic for ethics philosophies. And I don't think Pro fully convinces me of the ethics. I could not put in the source btw, Because DDO is broken. "10% of all circumcised men wish they were not circumcised. (6) This number, In my opinion, Is much lower than it will be when people actually think about this. "10% of all adults wish they never were forced into school, Should we just not let children go to school? (that statistic is made up, I'm making an example). "If I numbed your hand's sensitivity your hand would still function at its primary function. It means that men who are circumcised will never feel pleasure on the level that uncircumcised men will. It is similar to FGM in its function - to disincentivize the population from enjoying sex. "Statements like these are impossible to prove. Just because nerve cells are lost does not mean pleasure is reduced. Orgasms are not just based on skin sensitivity. I certainly cum a lot faster if I masturbate with shampoo and lotion than if I just use my hands raw. But my orgasm pleasure will be based on my imagination, My mood. If I cum quickly because of the shampoo, I feel disatisfied. My pleasure is reduced. I want to edge it out longer. I'm sure Pro will agree with this analogy. "Your studies are flawed. If you can point out some sources to me where these things have been taken into consideration, Please do so. I have read many studies"I don't agree with Pro. Losing nerve cells does not reduce penis sensitivity that much. My position is that there are no well done studies showing this. So I think Pro can't come up with studies that prove circumcision reduce penis sensitivity. "Children should not be mutilated without their consent. "Pro does not make any arguments based on moral philosophy. I assume his main case against mutilation is that mutilitating babies is harmful. Doing harmful is unethical. So therefore Pro must prove that it is harmful. As my rebuttals show, This is not necessarily the case.