Instigator / Con
4
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Topic
#5263
It is good to circumcise more than 80% of the male children
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
WyIted
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
7
1498
rating
31
debates
67.74%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Thanks for accepting the debate.
We all know what circumcision is, so my argument will be simple.
1. Greatest equal options
Every person desires to have options in life.
An adult who was never circumcised can make a decision to get circumcised if he wants, if he chooses to go through that pain, or to keep his foreskin as it is.
However, a circumcised child has no such option.
Circumcised child can, at best, later in adulthood, try to regrow foreskin.
So we see that uncircumcised adult has an option to get or to not get circumcised, but circumcised child has no such options.
The choice to never get circumcised, to never go through that pain and to keep first foreskin is being taken away from the child by force, reducing the number of options he has in life.
2. Not causing more pain than you remove
Circumcision causes a lot of pain.
Circumcising more than 80% of children for some small benefits for 2% of them is a lot of unnecessary pain.
Circumcision is painful, not just during, but also for 7 days after circumcision.
"11 patients (9.8%) had severe pain at any time during recovery, including 8 with wound problems"
There are also complications during circumcision, which leave injury to the penis, sometimes permanent damage in addition to the fact that circumcision itself is permanent.
3. Countries which have very low circumcision rates are healthier
If you look at top 20 countries in life expectancy, you will see that great majority of them have very low rates of circumcision.
But if you look at 20 countries with lowest life expectancy, you will see that they have very high circumcision rates.
There doesnt seem to be any health benefits of mass circumcision.
It seems that taking away options from people harms their health.
Conclusion
We see that circumcising children takes away their choice, causes much more pain than it removes, and isnt related to better health in general.
arguments
1. The risk of aids in circumcised infants is lowered up to 50% in circumcised males
2. The medical healthcare rates for uncircumcised males increases about $450 per male. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640353/
We see here better medical outcomes for having a piece of your childs dick cut off that he doesn't need anyway
rebuttals
greatest options
unsupported argument that more options is beneficial. first of all studies have determined less choices make us happier. https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/having-fewer-choices-can-promote-happiness
It's one of the reasons genius billionaires make less choices. Bill gates always wearing a black polo, zuckerburg always wearing a grey shirt and jeans and me personally, I don't change my underwear.
Not to mention allowing a choice to be pushed back later isn't going to be beneficial if your kid gets aids as studies indicate is more likely to happen.
causing pain
Con argued against infant circumcision by pointing to a study of adult males who received circumcisions. It's not evidence that infants feel a great deal of pain or suffer any long term negative impacts from circumcision and he does have an equal burden of proof in this deate to prove his side as well.
lower circumcision/lower death
my opponent did not prove less circumcisions equal less death. He provided a citation merely to life expectency with nothing about which countries have the most circumcisions. However when I dug into his statistics myself from other sources it appears countries like the united states and Germany are being compared to places with low circumcision in Greece and Japan. SO we are comparing the life expectency in a country with obesity epidemics like the United states and Germany with countries in famous blue zones known for their healthy diets and low BMIs and studied extensively for how often these diets lead to them becoming 100 year olds.
con is being gay please vote pro
Round 2
con's second round was even gayer than his first round. extend all arguments.
Round 3
Hehe, yeah.
I concede.
That is a classy move on your part con. I really do appreciate the opportunity to talk about the penises of little boys with you and hopefully we can continue to have interesting discussions about the sexual organs of children moving forward.
It's just a joke LOL. It also happens to be factually accurate that the debate is about the penises of children
For better or worse, we're not overreacting so much anymore. As much as the words are gross.
Why would you tell it to me? Tell it to whiteflame. You didnt ask me, and I am not even a moderator.
I can tell you the 2 rules he is violating if you want me to go there.
You are probably just trolling for attention. You often publicly report things that are not violations.
I don't know what to say.
That is some shit you never want said on a site you moderate, I would have him begging for mercy just like he did ADOL, if I were in your shoes.
It's perhaps in poor taste, and voters are welcome to recognize that in their votes, but yes, he's "allowed" to say it.
I didn't ask you.
Yes, its allowed.
Its just a harmless joke.
Is the round 3 allowed for the site president to say?
bill gates is not famous for wearing a black polo shirt. I am pissed at myself for missing that type