It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Male:Someone who has a penis.
Regardless if you are single or married right now, it is wrong for you to divorce right now.
These definitions cannot be challenged in this debate. If you accept the debate, you agree to these definitions in this debate.
PRO: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is true.CON: The statement "It Is Wrong To Circumcise Male Children" is false.
Since children are never willing, children are always forced.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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".
Con conceded that circumcision is rape, and didnt challenge it.
Con conceded that circumcision is very painful, and didnt challenge it.
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.
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.
- Circumcision is relatively painless and to compare it to raping 1000 people is irrational.
- All points made in R1 is defended. Vote CON.
Pro starts well with outlining harms, then turns into a disorganized Gish Gallop as if in reply to something con had not written. And declares that to circumcize is to rape (not merely similar crimes, but the same crime).
Con starts with a comedy kritik about the definition of male.
Con argues painful infections are a good reason to circumcise children. Further he uses a series of analogies to show that forcing children to do things can be to their benefit. Con then builds examples when a child would be willing, to wholly refute pro's claims about involuntary.
Pro retorts that con is trying to justify rape. He keeps hammering on this...
Con basically extends, and reminds the audience that the resolution is all in without exception, meaning his case need not be in favor of forced circumcising all boys. He adds that pro has not provided evidence for his assumed harms.
Arguments:
Con easily found times when it is best to circumcise, thereby disproving the resolution. This is somewhat akin to abortion debates where someone does not even allow an exception for ectopic pregnancy.
Legibility:
Pro was a disorganized mess. Con forgot to put extra line breaks when dealing with quotations. Ultimately while I favor con on this, it's not by enough to claim the point.
Conduct:
Pro lost this with the whole rape thing he kept doubling down on.
I believe and I circumcise 🖖
I admit the kritik was suboptimal, because the 'girl' can just peel the penis 'she' has. I've got a better one: There are kids who are circumcised before the age of 10, you can't tell them to be circumcised again because they have no foreskin. Everything else is the same. Impossible cases are attempted access.
1 day left. Something please?
5 days left, a vote would be great.
Its a satisfying ending.
My mind is really mixing with me. I would write the argument more elaborately if I remembered yesterday that this debate is 2 rounds.
I can see where you're coming from. I don't think it's wrong, but I do think that it should have some restrictions.