Instigator / Pro
3
1300
rating
220
debates
44.77%
won
Topic
#3919

It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

Burden of proof is shared.

To make things worse for my opponent, this is one of the topics I am very sensitive about.

DEFINITIONS:

Children:
People under the age of 10.

Male:
Someone who has a penis.

Circumcision:
Separation of a foreskin from a penis.

These definitions cannot be challenged in this debate. If you accept the debate, you agree to these definitions in this debate.

Round 1
Pro
#1
There are 2 types of circumcision: willing and forced.

Since children are never willing, children are always forced.

1) Irreversible damage

2) Pain and cruelty

3) Lack of consent

4) No benefits

Destroying something that cannot be made again is by definition an irreversible damage.

There are no benefits of circumcision that can benefit a child in great majority of cases.

Potentially preventing STDs is useless for a child.
This is only useful for an immoral adult who gets STDs due to his immoral lifestyle.

Prostate cancer prevention is pure nonsense. Great great majority of children will not get prostate cancer.

Adults can choose to get circumcised. If an adult is circumcised, he gains exactly the same benefits as if he would if he was circumcised as a child, with one difference: it would be his choice.

Its obvious that circumcising a child takes away choice from a child.

It also takes away choice from an adult. If someone is circumcised as a child, he will be a circumcised adult without his choice.

False values such as "health over choice" are promoted, ridiculously, in a society that cares the least about health.

Since circumcision has no benefits for the child, forcing children to get circumcised is equal to forcing an adult to get circumcised.

So why are people allowed to circumcise adults against their will?

If an adult's choice about his own body is important, why is an adult denied of a choice to be or not to be circumcised?

By circumcising a child, you are circumcising an adult, since circumcised child grows into circumcised adult.

This circumcised adult has no choice to be circumcised or not. He is already circumcised without his choice.

Contrary to that, uncircumcised adult has a choice to be circumcised or to remain as he always was.

Why is it allowed to make changes to adult's body without his approval?

What is the difference between forcing children to be circumcised or forcing adults to be circumcised?

The difference is that children are weak and will not beat you up when you force them.

Oppression for the weak and respect for the powerful is how society works.

Society admits this and says: "It is better to circumcise newborns because they will make less of a problem than it would be if it was done later."
Read:They are weaker.

It will not be less of a problem for a newborn. For a newborn, it will be the greatest pain he ever experienced.

For doctors, it wont be a problem. Newborn is tied down so he cannot move, making procedure easier.

One must ask: Easier for who? Less of a problem for who?

Is it allowed to make changes to adult's body against his will? Circumcising a child circumcises an adult.

The difference between circumcision and non-circumcision, the difference between raping and not raping, the difference between making change and not making change is that making change is by definition the opposite of not making change.

When not making change, things remain as they are.

The change made to individual's body without individual's consent is the rape of individual's body.

Opposite of that, not making change leaves things as they are.

Circumcision is forced change to adult's body compared to no-circumcision which is not a change.

Doing requires a doer. Rape requires a rapist. Circumcision requires a circumciser.

To who does child's body belong?

If it belongs to the child, then the child makes decisions. No child wants to be circumcised.

If child's body belongs to an adult, then there is nothing to discuss other than which adult gets to own children.

It is easy to conclude that it is not just the case that child doesnt want to be circumcised, but it is also the case that child wants to not be circumcised and cries in protest against this change done to his own body where his body has to serve the interests of adults. The moral lesson the child learns is: "You are weak, so suffer."

I could not compare circumcision to rape, and I could not compare a circumciser to a rapist.

While both circumcision and rape hurt horribly and attack the body and the brain through huge amounts of pain and alteration, circumcision is worse as it is usually done to a newborn.

Changing newborn's body and forcing his mind to experience extreme pain makes all the benefits of circumcision negated.

So, in that sense, circumcision could be called "Rape with benefits".

The idea that someone would accept to defend circumcision is beyond disgusting, but we do live in a world that is beyond disgusting.

As a victim of circumcision that brought me no benefits at all and damaged my brain and my penis, I dont see why people complain when I insult them and call them what they are: rapists.

Do they expect me to be nice to them? Do they expect me to tolerate rape?

By nature, I hate everyone and everyone hates me. But who was first to hate who? A simple answer, just use your brain.

Some people might say: "Why do you hate us? We didnt circumcise you."
Are you appealing to fairness? The world isnt fair, dumbass. Why do you think you should be treated fairly? Just your opinion? Well, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong. You dont get to be treated fairly if I was denied of such treatment myself. Get it, dummy? Its interesting how you appeal to fairness. Whats next you are going to appeal to? Human rights? Why dont you promote having your brain removed instead. Fucking drug addict son of a prostitute.

Con
#2
1. Dispute on Definitions

Male:
Someone who has a penis.
This definition would yield some otherwise absurd results. For example, if a 'girl' has a weird habit of collecting penises that she tore off from other people, by definition, this 'girl' is a male. I would advise changing the definition to "Male: Someone who develops a penis biologically naturally from the womb stage" or that, but with more precise academic terms. These individuals theoretically do exist(although they probably shouldn't in my opinion), including yes, individuals naturally posessing a vagina(and etc.) instead of a penis(and etc.). For such persons, the fixated definition used for 'Circumcision" may be impossible altogether, making the whole claim itself impossible to uphold, as the claim itself becomes something very similar in nature to this.
Regardless if you are single or married right now, it is wrong for you to divorce right now.
In which it attempts to access and judge cases that should exist based on how the sentence is structured, but sorry, they don't.
These definitions cannot be challenged in this debate. If you accept the debate, you agree to these definitions in this debate.
The claim itself, especially since Pro failed to source his definitions, would possibly hurt Pro more than it could hurt Con. Pro fixated the whole issue on a permanently immobile set of words, and Pro would be responsible for any side effects due to how these terms could be interpreted. As the example above illustrates, the fixated set of definitions would essentially be errorenous or fallacious, similarly to how "0/0 = k" cannot be stated as true even if we substitute any/all real or even complex values for k. I am not challenging the definitions. I do accept these definitions and I thank Pro for doing so(/s).

The BoP should be:
PRO: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is true.
CON: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is false.
By default. If the statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is impossible to be proven to be true, it is therefore false. ALthough one may confuse it with saying that it is equivalent to saying "It is right to circumcise male children", it is not the only way to prove CON to be right. In all seriousness, Proving that "Wrong" cannot be used to describe "Circumcise Male Children" is sufficient enough at proving the CON position.

2. Infection

Before the age of 10, boys may get an infection under the foreskin due to fungus in moist conditions, etc. At this point, it is clinically advised to circumcise the boy's penis to avoid further pain and infection. (Source)

With possibly obvious health benefits, if we are denying a child's right to health, we are probably doing something wrong. Denying a child a path torwards better health just because "That would be forcing him" is in the same essence as refusing to pull one's son from an accelerating 18-wheeler in the middle of the road due to "That would be forcing him to live" and refusing the doctor to give him brain surgery(that has perfected through decades of trial) just because one's son is reduced to vegetables due to a brain injury and cannot audibly agree or disagree. "and we don't wanna force no one to do anything, do we." As to how ethical that is, I will let my opponent decide.

3.Rebuttals

Pro's first argument relied on assuming one statement to be true.

Since children are never willing, children are always forced.
Problem is, Pro brought up a lack of evidence proving why children are never willing. Children could be willing, in all seriousness. If your kid tells you that his wee-wee hurts all day long, chances are that you should bring him to a checkup to the medical doctor. We possibly call this "voluntary".

Pro may respond with, "A child doesn't know what circumcision is, he can't possibly decide that he should be circumcised." The real life implications, using this logic, would include(although not limited to):
  • Say your kid is hungry but doesn't know what restaurant to go to because the whole family just moved here. You know, and you are going to get some calzones downstairs for you an your kid to eat.
    • By Pro's logic, getting your kid calzones is forcing him to eat it, which is undesirable, so you should let him starve.
  • Now your kid matures and is now worrying about what college to go to. He is still undecided on which one to go to.
    • By that logic, the most logical thing to do is to reject all offers because your kid never consented to go to any school, essentially.
  • Your best friend wants to die. She prepares all the physical and psychological aids needed to be ready for such a finisher event.
    • By that logic, the most logical thing to do is to leave her dead because forcing her to live is bad in of itself.
      • Huh... Perhaps a therapist from a phone number may work better. Maybe you can double as a temporary therapist.
Suppose we adhere to the strict rules Pro intend us to follow throughout the first entry, the results can be so unrealistic that is reasonable to question the rules itself. And oh yes, if your son's genital hurts and he wants the pain to go away, and a checkup says that circumcision can solve it(Especially since the success rate of circumcision is virtually 100%), that is the way to go. Similarly, if you are starving badly and don't know what to eat yet, when you get served random food(assuming it is actually indeed food), you stuff it into your face, you don't throw them away to the trashcan on the left of you saying "Don't tell me how to do stuff!"

Conclusion
  • The definitions, which cannot change now that we are here, can be interpreted to access an impossible scenario, rendering the statement impossible to be true.
  • Penile infection can be solved with circumcision being a facilitory step, and to deny such method that even if a male child describes a clear source of pain in the genitals would be absurd in of itself.
  • Vote CON.

Round 2
Pro
#3
Con's case is described as:

1) Justifying rape
2) Hurting many for the benefits of the few
3) Using illogical comparisons that dont have same results
4) Attempting to mock definitions


Con wasted half of his argument failing to understand definitions and reached wrong conclusions each time.

We will not be wasting our time responding to why girl who steals penises cant be circumcised.
We will leave that one for Con to think about.

Con is against suicides. So Con thinks that a person's body doesnt belong to that person. This Maoist greater health mentality that fails miserably, because cars, pollution, junk food, smoking...ect. are all harmful. Even life is harmful. However, Con does not argue against these. Poor inconsistent Con and his arguments!

"Before the age of 10, boys may get an infection under the foreskin"

Is this Con's justification for rape?

Con didnt even define what "may" means.

It could mean 1 in 1000.

We will accept that it means 1 in 1000,  since Con didnt provide a definition.

In that case, Con's claim is: "Its okay to rape 1000 people because 1 of them would get an infection if we dont rape them all."

Then Con compares that to:
"refusing to pull one's son from an accelerating 18-wheeler in the middle of the road"

Its obvious that Con tries to compare the following:

"forcing and hurting 1000 people for the benefit of 1 person"

to

"forcing 1 person for the benefit of that person".

These two are not even similar, as the cost of force is 1000 times higher in the first case. First case involves extreme pain for 1000 people.

According to Con:
"thousands should be raped for benefit of one" is a justified position to hold, and it is the same as "forcing one for the benefit of one".

This nonsense Con tries to spread around here is a result of a desperate circumciser-rapist mentality.

Con conceded that circumcision is rape, and didnt challenge it.

Con conceded that circumcision is very painful, and didnt challenge it.

Using extreme pain to remove pain is in itself a nonsense, but lets assume Con is right about willing circumcision in case of infections.

Since we are dealing with resolution that includes all male children and not just the ones with an infection, Con did not present an argument as to why its not wrong to circumcise all male children.

This means how Con failed the burden of proof, as he failed to explain why is it not wrong to circumcise 99.9% of children.

He only presented arguments for 0.1% of cases, as to why its not wrong then.

However, the topic is not "some male children", or "male children with infections". Topic is about all male children and is not limited to specific minority group Con is after.

Con based his entire case on an unlikely scenario of infections and even more unlikely scenario of a girl stealing penises.

Forcing someone if its obvious that death of that someone will occur if not forcred is good.

Raping 1000 people to prevent an infection in one of them is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

You are better than this Con. Use your brain and think of a better argument next time.


Con
#4
Rebuttals

Definition
Con wasted half of his argument failing to understand definitions and reached wrong conclusions each time.

We will not be wasting our time responding to why girl who steals penises cant be circumcised.
We will leave that one for Con to think about.
This is just a more passive-aggressive way to say "I do not have any points against your supposed impacts on these definitions, but I am mad about it". I will consider that a point dropped since not even quoting me in this elaborate section definitely does not count as a sufficient proof enough to debunk my constructive there.

Remind everyone:
The BoP should be:
PRO: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is true.
CON: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is false.
By default. If the statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is impossible to be proven to be true, it is therefore false. ALthough one may confuse it with saying that it is equivalent to saying "It is right to circumcise male children", it is not the only way to prove CON to be right. In all seriousness, Proving that "Wrong" cannot be used to describe "Circumcise Male Children" is sufficient enough at proving the CON position.
By this point, due to that Pro's definition attempts to access null cases in which it is impossible to assign the term "wrong" to, the statement is already proven to not be true. Pro has not responded to these definitions, has not changed definitions, has not defended definitions, has not defended how special null cases are in fact possible(The definition supposedly judges the penile circuncision for a penis-collecting girl that could exist, which is biologically impossible), and has merely ranted on how I am at fault here during this short section.

Con is against suicides. So Con thinks that a person's body doesnt belong to that person. This Maoist greater health mentality that fails miserably, because cars, pollution, junk food, smoking...ect. are all harmful. Even life is harmful. However, Con does not argue against these. Poor inconsistent Con and his arguments!
Oh well, by default I thought you are against suicides, I am sorry for assuming so. However, we could just assume that the "you" roles in examples given above are against unnecessary deaths, and at this point Pro's logic of "freedom of choice first" would ensure that in many cases, that this eventually leads to an undesirable death for the "you" roles in examples in CON1 above.

The bolded statement jumps to conclusion way too quickly and has even less proof than what he accused me of not proving. The underlined statement above is of incorrect grammar to the point where I cannot truly make up the central point Pro is trying to write in that position. What did Con not argue against? This was not made clear as the statement before it is clearly confunded. Poor inconsistent Pro and his arguments, perhaps?

"Before the age of 10, boys may get an infection under the foreskin"

Is this Con's justification for rape?

Con didnt even define what "may" means.

It could mean 1 in 1000.

We will accept that it means 1 in 1000,  since Con didnt provide a definition.

In that case, Con's claim is: "Its okay to rape 1000 people because 1 of them would get an infection if we dont rape them all."
Slippery slope fallacy, not enough counterproof. However, I should present that if there is 1 instance in which the action of circumcision in male children cannot be described as "wrong", it is therefore incorrect to say that "it is wrong to circumcise male children" due to a lack of restriction in the prompt. Even an "On balance" in front of the statement would have incremented Pro's chance of winning here, but alas, it didn't happen.

Then Con compares that to:
"refusing to pull one's son from an accelerating 18-wheeler in the middle of the road"

Its obvious that Con tries to compare the following:

"forcing and hurting 1000 people for the benefit of 1 person"

to

"forcing 1 person for the benefit of that person".
This example is to illustrate that if we place vague freedom before what we think are desirable, what happens may be absurd for that person. In this case, not saving a kid even though he is almost being ran over is not dissimilar to the case of not going for a circumcision even if noticeable clinical conditions are appearing left and right. Pro makes the argument that I compare something to something else completely made up(the 1/1000 figure is made up, and the "forcing and hurting" part is also made up, as if Pro has seen any medical resources on the topic, he would know that circumcision is relatively easy to do, relatively painless, and almost always succeeds. source), which amounts to further nothing.

Comparing a painless, easy-to-do surgery to painful and illegal rape is of baselessness. This connection is being brought up since R1, yet there is no evidence to support just how painful it is.

Con conceded that circumcision is rape, and didnt challenge it.
Pro never gave any reliable sources on how circumcision is rape, merely personal logic works. Judging on that even "Children are never willing" can be disproved by existing clinical cases here, the case never stood at all.

Con conceded that circumcision is very painful, and didnt challenge it.
Pro never gave a source on how circumcision is very painful, so I didn't need to challenge it in the first place because it never stood towers.

This means how Con failed the burden of proof, as he failed to explain why is it not wrong to circumcise 99.9% of children.

He only presented arguments for 0.1% of cases, as to why its not wrong then.
Based on the immobile nature of the definitions and the topic itself, 0.1% is enough.

However, the topic is not "some male children", or "male children with infections". Topic is about all male children and is not limited to specific minority group Con is after.
Exactly. Pro's purpose is to prove the topic right, which includes proving that circumcision is wrong for all male children(including those that cannot be circumcised, possibly). Any counterexamples would render the topic wrong.

Raping 1000 people to prevent an infection in one of them is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

You are better than this Con. Use your brain and think of a better argument next time.
Weighing a relatively common, painless, easy surgery to the level of "raping 1000 people" is an even dumber one I have heard.

You are better than this Pro. Use more of your brain and think of a better argument next time.

Conclusions
  • Circumcision is relatively painless and to compare it to raping 1000 people is irrational.
  • All points made in R1 is defended. Vote CON.