The Circumcision of minors without absolute medical necessity should be banned

My opponent starts out his response by claiming that circumcision does not reduce sexual pleasure, and attempting to refute one such source that shows this, by claiming that it was 'biased.' 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 false. 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. {1} The University of California has confirmed this reality as well. {2}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. stated:"Circumcision in childhood and adolescence has significant negative psychological consequences. Following a traumatic event, many children experience anxiety, depression, and anger; and many others try to avoid and suppress these painful feelings (Gil, 2006). In addition, children often experience a debilitating loss of control that negatively affects their ability to regulate emotions and make sense of the traumatic experience (Van der Kolk, 2005)." {3} 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)." {4}My opponent claims:"Now as far as I am aware, literally EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ON EARTH considers parents to be able to give consent by proxy to their children on a wide range of issues and considers male circumcision to be firmly in the camp of a legal and permissible expression of Freedom of Religion because of the absence of adverse effects (unlike murdering people as per your examples). So literally every single national judiciary and legislative body on the planet disagrees with your interpretations of how human rights and religious freedom work."This is false- Sweden and Denmark have stated that all non-medical circumcision should be banned, {5} and Sweden has recently followed through with this recommendation, as well as Germany. {6}Milton Friedman is a very respected source, he was the winner of both a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of freedom- but regardless, I was only quoting Milton Friedman because he made a valid point, and one which refutes my opponents claim of religious freedom. 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. {1}. http://www.livescience.com...{2}. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu...{3}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...{4}. https://www.psychologytoday.com...{5}. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...{6}}. http://www.bbc.co.uk...{7}.