The circumcision of a minor without medical neccessity should be banned.

I. THE RESOLUTION:It seems that in debates such as these, those on the pro-Genital Mutilation side stray from the actual resolution of the debate in an effort to win an argument completely separate from the resolution itself. So let me be clear:This debate is about the ethics of the circumcision of a minor for non-medical reasons. The question was: is it morally acceptable to cut parts off of your children for no medical reason whatsoever? Is it acceptable to mutilate your children's genitals? The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic NO. I have argued this upon grounds of bodily autonomy- my opponent must address the principle of the act. This debate is NOT whether or not certain American Medical Associations say it is OK, it was not whether or not people do so because they think there are health benefits, it was not even as to whether or not parents believe it to be what is 'best for their children'All of these things have no bearing upon the nature or principle of the act- my opponent would not accept this very same logic if it were applied to some other form of non-medical amputation. The clitoris for example:1. Muslim doctors claim that clitorectomies on young girls are OK- as a matter of fact, American Doctors used to say that clitorectomies on young girls were OK as well. 2. The Muslims too think that clitorectomies have 'health benefits.'3. The Muslims too perform clitorectomies on their daughters because they think it is 'what is best for them.'Yet none of this has any bearing on the morality of the practise. As stated earlier, my opponent must remain consistent- if he can justify cutting parts of the penis off with these arguments, then they should be equally true of cutting parts off of the vagina.II. HEALTH BENEFITS:My opponent states:"1. Not if the STI cannot be treated by antibiotics due to its nature. Prevention is better that treatment, both financially and for the patient."This point was for UTI's, which can always be treated with antibiotics. "2. Irrelevant. This doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't help reduce the risk of STIs."First of all, the study which claimed this included Jews and Muslims, who do not engage in sexual activity before marriage ad are likely to be monogamous- which reduces their chances of contracting an STD to next to nothing- skewing the results. Second of all, we are not talking about a vaccine here- we are talking about preemptive amputation. The reduced risks of health concerns corresponding to an amputated appendage cannot rationally be considered a health benefit. We could cure breast cancer by performing mastectomies on baby girls at birth- yet we don't do that. "3. There have been 360 deaths from penile cancer in 2017 alone (5 months). Shouldn't we seek to eradicate this disease?"First of all, it wouldn't eradicate the disease- it would slightly reduce your risks of catching it. Second of all, this still doesn't justify preemptive amputation- any more than Routine Infant Mastectomies is justified under the guise of preventing breast cancer. Third of all, 360 out of 160 million men means that the chance of a man contracting penile cancer is 0.000225%. "4. Again irrelevant. Other treatments do not negate the benefit of circumcision. For example: don't prevent obesity, if someone gets obese they can just have liposuction surgery. This is clearly wrong."We are talking about preemptive amputation here- that isn't a legitimate or acceptable way to prevent illnesses. We could perform Routine Infant Mastectomies and that would eradicate breast cancer- yet we don't do that, and instead we search for a cure. Consistency is very important. Furthermore, my opponent claims:"What's your obsession with the female genitals? Can't you keep the debate relevant to the males ones? This only suggests that you cannot find sufficient arguments against my points so thereby must argue about something else entirely. The female genitals are entirely different from the male ones. Therefore, in debating the medical consequences of editing them, completely different answers will ensue."Raping women is perfectly OK- as a matter of fact, being raped is beneficial for women- but not for men. You see, female and male bodies are different, so while rape is good for women, it is harmful for men. You can't compare the two because the two genders are different, and so the consequences are going to be different as well. That's pretty much what your response sounded like- absurd nonsense and arbitrary distinctions, this debate has to do with the ethics of genital mutilation, that penises and vaginas are different has no bearing on the principle of the act of mutilating them. SUMMARY:This debate has been a lot like the following conversation:Furthermore, he has completely failed to address the scope of the debate- which is ethics, and has instead constructed absurd justifications which have no bearing on the resolution. When I refused to respond to some of these, he claimed:"From R2, you've missed out most of my points, been guilty of irrelevancy and straw man arguments, and have only asserted rhetoric instead of proving anything. On these grounds, all my points in R2 remain intact."This I have heard from a number of people before- but honestly, it's just gibberish. It is the second law of logic that no claim can contradict itself- I have shown by comparisons that my opponents rationalisations were not consistent. Just like you cannot rationally claim that it is OK to rape women, but not OK to rape men- so too it is a contradiction to claim that mutilating baby boys is OK, but mutilating baby girls is not OK. The claim that boys and girls are different still has no bearing on the principle of the act. Furthermore, never once have I used a straw man fallacy- neither have I replaced reason with rhetoric. This debate has to do with ethics, as stated in round one, and I have applied Lockean Liberalism to this topic as stated in round 1, and have thus proven that Male Genital Mutilation is immoral. That's not rhetoric- it's logic. My opponent has provided faulty evidence of claims that, even if proven empirically, would have no bearing on the debate. None of your round 2 arguments remain intact- I circumcised them, you just fail to realise this. Following the topic of the debate- I have argued upon the basis of Classical Liberalism that it is not morally acceptable to cut parts off of your children. My opponent has devised claims and rationalisations, but no real arguments. He has failed to actually address the immorality of the act, and has instead claimed that:1. Parental Rights mean circumcision is OK- even though parental rights do not permit child abuse. 2. Religious freedom means circumcision is OK- even though religious freedom does not allow you to engage in child abuse either, and does not apply to infringing the rights of others. 3. There are claims of health benefits- even though the claim of health benefits has no bearing on the principle of the act, as demonstrated previously. None of these are actual arguments- none of them justify circumcision- none of them even apply to this debate- and none of them are valid responses to any of my arguments.