Instigator / Con
3
1500
rating
9
debates
27.78%
won
Topic
#4600
American men cutting dick
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 6 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Slainte
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Description
Dick is not bad thing that need to be cut. It can be good thing. If I had dick I would keep it.
One of my friends who marry American guy says he cut dick . This not something should be done.
Round 1
My English is not so good. Please forgive.
Introduction:
Circumcision is a common in America. Apparently men cut their dick at birth. They seem to have very cruel mothers.
1. Cut dicks do not fell good for men
The pee pee apparently does not feel as good when cut, so my blow job's are less effective on American men. They really miss out. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/
2. Cut penis looks weird
American women are fat and ugly. Maybe cut penis looks good to them but russian women are prettier, and we are used to real men who have their entire penis still with them. If you want fat American woman good for you but I say you should strive to be with pretty girls like me.
3. Accidents happen
Sometimes when doctors cut penis they over cut. You can lose the penis and not be able to satisfy future wife. https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Maybe if kid becomes adult they can choose to cut off their penis and become girl or just cut off part of penis and have an ugly dick that makes them inferior sexual partners, but kids should be able to keep entire penis and not have to worry about parents cutting it off.
Conclusion:
I want to mostly talk about circumcision as you call it, but men cutting off penises to become girl is also unnatural and weird.
I like to have an entire penis when I get married one day.
Not all circumcision is on minors. However bodily mutilation for religious purposes is common.
We have Self-flagellation in Shia Islam where Shia Muslims practice self-flagellation during the holy month of Muharram. Coptic Christianity and body piercing: In certain sects of Coptic Christianity, particularly in Egypt occurs when some individuals practice body piercing as an act of penance or devotion. Piercing may involve inserting small skewers or hooks through the skin, usually on the back, as a form of self-mortification
If we look at Thaipusam in Hinduism which involves a festival celebrated mainly by Tamil communities. Self mutilators demonstrate their devotion to the deity Murugan by engaging in acts of self-mortification including piercing the skin, cheeks, tongue, or back with skewers or hooks. They also can carry an elaborate kavadi (ornate structures) attached to their bodies using hooks and spears
The Kayan Lahwi tribe, also known as the "Long Neck" tribe, practices the tradition of wearing brass coils around the necks of women from a young age. All in the name of culture and religion.
The individual right to mutilate their bodies int he name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity. If I get a name of my children tattooed or burn scarred into my body, that is OK. Nowhere in the description or resolution does is this argument restricted to children.
I urge Con to concede for the above reasons.
Round 2
Pro arguing that all men dick should be cut. He conceded that it is not for some men, this is a forfeit.
He say because some people have silly superstitions that dick cutting is good thing.
All of my arguments are dropped.
Pro drops. Cut dicks ugly
Pro drops that cut dicks do not appreciate my blow job's as much
Pro drops the issues with consent and all of my points and then focuses on superstitious peoples believing cutting dick is good thing.
If Muslim, Jewish or Christian cut dick, that is their choice but it is not good choice.
Superstitious people also have been known to throw babies into fire to sacrifice to moloch. Some superstitions say women should have clitoris cut.
Pro has not made argument for why this superstitious beliefs should be used instead of logic, reason and science.
I tell the Abraham's. If God say you should sacrifice son, then maybe take medicine instead of hoping he sends a lamb at last second.
If God tells you to cut dick, maybe show skepticism. If God is real (LOL), than he gave you faculties of mind to make use of logic and reason.
Con is confused on how a debate works. the first round is to set your arguments. Later rounds are to address your counterparts.
In round 1. Con states:
1. Cut dicks do not fell good for men
People do a lot of things that don't feel good, like implants, tattoos, piercings, getting a hangover, working out too hard. "not feel good" on itself is insufficient reasons to justify an outright cultural ban.
Con says:
2. Cut penis looks weird
and then admits that circumcision should be a choice
If you want fat American woman good for you
Con says:
3. Accidents happen
Yes they do. Cooking food can cause a burn. Do we cancel it? Cars cause deaths. Do we ban cars? Accidents are not independently justified to ban.
Con says:
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
There are medically necessary reasons why a circumcision needs to be performed. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550#:~:text=Sometimes%20there's%20a%20medical%20need,of%20certain%20sexually%20transmitted%20infections.
I dont think you need consent to say that kids should not be harmed. I agree with you there. The question is, in the greater good, is a circumcision harm. Con has only said that it hurts, and does not look good. That does not qualify as "harm" to the level that would meet the burden of proof on this debate.
Con says
If Muslim, Jewish or Christian cut dick, that is their choice but it is not good choice.
I have shown above that sometimes it IS a good choice because it is medically necessary.
My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someones choice. If Con accepts that it may be a choice, and can see there are medically needed times for those who cannot consent, and a pure right to mutilate your body for those who can give consent, then Con has failed to meet a BOP, through pure contradiction.
It is the right for anyone to modify their bodies. We do it physically, we do it through eating exercise, laziness, and drinking, we do it through drugs, and vaccines, and we do it with tattoos, piercings, and implants.
All other arguments extended.
Round 3
Framework
Thank you pro for having this debate with me. I think that pro does not realize I put myself as Con so he would have the burden of proof to show why American men should cut dick.
There is 2 possible interpretation of this resolution.
1. The most normal interpretation in debate is that ro should prove why all men should cut dick.
Pro concedes that cutting dick is not for all men as he points to exceptions to rule.
2. Interpretation of the debate in the next case at best would be that pro must show that usually men should cut dick.
Pro does not argue this should be usually done and this for all practical effects should be dropped.
Jury should accept the first interpretation but even with second interpretation of resolution than jury is obligated to vote me as pro only argues that superstitious people should cut dick.
Witchy Woman
In pro's first round he argue that since superstitious people sometimes cut dick that means it is good ideal to cut dick.
I respond that superstitious people if made by God (LOL) like they assume than God also makes mind to be used for logic.
Pro drops arguement that mind is superior than superstitions for figuring out will of God.
This really is only argument pro makes for cutting dick, that invisible sky fairy told him to cut his dick.
R2 rebuttals
1. Cut dick results in less sensation for men so they can not experience my superior peepee sucking skills as much as they should.
Pro responds
"People do a lot of things that don't feel good, like implants, tattoos, piercings, getting a hangover, working out too hard. "not feel good" on itself is insufficient reasons to justify an outright cultural ban"
I am arguing people should not cut dick. I never argue for ban. Pro is acting like he has no burden here, this is incorrect. If I give that it reduces pleasure as argument he needs to explain why that cost is not True or why benefits of cutting peepee outweigh the costs. Instead he drops my argument.
I assume he is male because no woman could justify a man cutting perfectly good penis.
2. Cut penis looks weird
"and then admits that circumcision should be a choice"
I think smoking should be choice also but not good ideal. Pro is mistaken to think debate is about a ban. Nobody mention ban. If I argue pineapples do not belong on pizza, would pro rando.ly assume I mean that people who put pineapples on pizza should go to prison? This is silly. The debate title does not say ban. Nowhere do I argue for ban. Pro is arguing outside scope of debate.
3. Accidents happen
Pro drops my argument that accidents can happen when taking knife to penis. This is important to know there is risk before deciding to start putting sharp objects around penis, but pro does not acknowledge I made this argument.
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro says
"I dont think you need consent to say that kids should not be harmed. I agree with you there. The question is, in the greater good, is a circumcision harm. Con has only said that it hurts, and does not look good. That does not qualify as "harm" to the level that would meet the burden of proof on this debate."
This is not what I argued at all. I say that in other words if irreparable harm can be done to child when penis is cut off, maybe he should have some say in cutting penis when he can better understand risks vs rewards.
I have not argued that cutting dick hurts either. This is strawman. I argued it can do irreversible damage such as accidental removal, loss of sensation etc and that it is unethical to remove parts of dick on kids since it is mostly cosmetic surgery and they are not old enough to consent.
It is important to notice that pro makes new argument this round by quoting source saying there are medical necessary reasons to cut dick.
But source just lists some extremely rare problems and even says these problems are avoidable its proper care. Here is direct quote.
"The risks of not being circumcised, however, are not only rare, but avoidable with proper care of the penis"
The article does not specifically state any medical need to cut dick beyond an inability to retract foreskin, but this problem is extremely rare. So no need to cut the dicks of millions of children if it is only going to affect a few. We can just cut dick of the few it affects.
Conclusion
Pro has not upheld their burden of proof that all men (most for lenient judges) should have dick cut.
Pro has wasted time of this court ignoring resolution of debate in the title and focusing on offhand opi ion irrelevant to debate.
Vote pro, vote to save the dicks . It is worthwhile cause.
Final Round
Con has used the last round to try to reframe the burden of proof. As no clear BoP had been established, the judges will look to the words of the resolution, and use the description as supporting evidence.
The description says:
This not something should be done.
I have shown why :"cutting a dick"is justifiable for reasons such as:
- Spiritual
- Religious
- Cosmetic
- Personal, and
- Health
We have five reasons why a "dick cutting" could/should be done, and is a direct contradiction to Pro's claim.
Should Not versus Ban
In fairness to Con, at no point was a ban purported by them. The problem here is that it appears the Con is arguing with respect to their preferences of penile care and mutilation. The problem with Con's contention is that there is nothing in the resolution or description that clearly shows a personal reference point rather than a broad one. I remind all of Con's quote.
This not something should be done.
The Judges will clearly see that Con never inferred this debate was supposed to be based on a personal preference, which is what Con is trying to establish in the last round. Con's own comments referencing friends and general statements show that the debate is based on the social interpretation, not the personal.
Conclusion
The language of the resolution and description are clear. I have shown a number of reasons the justify the genital modification actions articulated. At no point does Con prove:
1. Spiritual purposes should not encompass male genital modification
2. Religious reasons should not encompass male genital modification
3. Cosmetic purposes should not encompass male genital modification
4. Personal purposes should not encompass male genital modification
5. Health reasons should not encompass male genital modification
Con set the resolution, the description, and went first. They could have framed the debate in a different way, and they did not.
I have met the deduced BoP. Thank you for your time.
I forfeit. Please round up the votes to take this.
Great moderating on all fronts. Thank you Barney
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
There wasn’t really a resolution for this debate. So it was hard to pick a winner. However I will go with pro because it seems to me that con is making the case that the choice shouldn’t even be had. I do not like that type of thinking. People should be able to choose whether or not they engage with this activity. The other absolutely obnoxious statement is “western men don’t like my blow jobs as much” maybe you’re just not good at giving blowjobs. There are logical arguments to be made to not have circumcisions be done. Con made none of these arguments, so I have a hard time giving him the vote.
The other reason I vote pro is because he seems to be at least attempting to not meddle into others lives. If anyone knows how I form my opinions it, in most cases, revolves around leaving people alone. Allowing them to make their own decisions as long as those decisions don’t inhibit my life or others lives in some way. People not liking Con’s blow jobs is not good enough to show this activity is inhibiting his or her life to a great extent.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While it's good to give honest feedback on weaknesses, this vote reads too much like just an opinion on the topic. A breakdown on the similar contentions against interference in peoples lives would have greatly improved this, rather than just saying one seemed to argue that (in this case, both did in their own way) so they win.
Outside content may be commented on, so long as it does not cross into being a determinant factor on the vote. Should the voter weigh things outside of what the debaters themselves presented inside the debate rounds, the vote is eligible for deletion (identified plagiarism is a notable exception).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FishChaser // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision:
"Should not do" does not mean "should not be allowed to do" nor do any of the reasons Pro provided make circumcision ideal. Even when it is necessary, that doesn't make it desirable. That being said I think con argued their case better.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Please show how one side argued the case better.
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Mps and fish cancel each other out
I thought it was common sense that at best both sides were arguing for most situations. I hope I worded it better in new debate
Interesting debate…
Both sides argued the other should argue as an absolute. If this debate werabout pineapple on pizza, con would claim pro must prove it needs to be on all pizza; whereas pro would argue that con is arguing for a complete ban…
I am not angry but I am woman. Ask any woman. Anyone who disagrees with woman is objectively wrong.
are you angry at me? I gave good rfd
I also want to thank everyone and am happy they take time to vote even the ones who vote wrong.
Thank you for the votes, and for taking the time to read and comment on the content!
I no speak good English. Give break comrade.
I would give win to con if topic said "boys", but "men" does not include children. The argument about children was off topic.
RFD 2/2:
Pro’s Ideal of Framework/Burden:
All there really is to it, is letting us review the resolution and the description of how it reflects upon both the burden and framework.
I think pro prevails countering con’s framework.
So, as the description says “This is not something that should be done”, the resolution is practically;
Instigator: American cutting dick is not something that should be done
Contender: American dick is something that should be done
It really, now, just comes down to who can justify it more.
Pro: Personal Preference
I wasn’t going to mention this at first but I think this actually does play a role.
It is clear that con has been influenced by personal feelings or interpretations per say, and i’m led to believe just because it’s not desirable from them, it’s not desire for everyone else. That’s the problem. Pro points out themselves.
I think this is one of my main reasons for not regarding contention one and contention two as much.
Decision:
Now I think I come down to just a few things.
Freedom & Medical Emergency and Children Consent.
I think overall, pro justifies why someone might want to be circumcised or get circumcised. I think it’s shown we shouldn’t not let people do as they want when they have reasons. Con never shows that those reasons don't outweigh the risks. Children consent is limited, while con opens up to both children and adults covering a good portion, or majority.
ARGUMENTS: Pro.
RFD 1/2:
[ ] is personal thoughts, not mentioned by either side that won’t be judged or based on.
First off, before I go straight into my vote, let's take a look at the resolution. Nowhere does this include all men, some men, one man, etc. It’s quite broad. I won’t personally distinguish what the resolution should be, I'll leave that to both pro and con.
Let's go ahead and look into the arguments..
R1
Con stated four contentions:
1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men
2. Cut penis looks weird
3. Accidents happen
4. Kids should not be harmed without consent
Pro stated his first contention:
“The individual right to mutilate their bodies in the name of a belief or religion is a cornerstone of individual humanity.”
—
Now let’s look into the actual rebuttals.
R2
Con’s rebuttals:
Con doesn’t really rebuttal, except for the fact of practically saying religious people have the choice, however, it’s not a good choice.
As for Pro’s rebuttals:
“1. Cut dicks do not feel good for men”
Pro then goes on to state a valid point, some things don't feel good in general.
They give examples of such things like piercings, tattoos, hangovers, etc..
Basically pro’s point was: Many things don’t feel good, so what?
I think pro quite literally threw pro’s first contention out the window.
“2. Cut penis looks weird”
Pro doesn’t completely counter, expect for reminding that she had already conceded circumcision should be a choice.
“3. Accidents happen”
[I think it would’ve been better if somebody had said the rates of accidents when circumcising. Particularly con if they mention it. But nobody did.. so..]
Basically pro, summarized, says accidents happen all the time. Doesn’t mean we should completely stop or ban it all together.
I think pro did drop this to an extent, but doesn’t at the same time. Accidents happen all the time and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but specifically, accidents happen with this surgery.
[Once again, it would’ve been so much better if someone had some percentage of these accidents occurring. It would’ve cleared this up so much better. Just a little heads up, the percent is low.]
“4. Kids should not be harmed without consent”
[Honestly the resolution: “American Men” should clear this up completely. The resolution says men, not American male children or American males. But once again, nothing was said. I just don’t know if I can or will include this as it is not counting towards her burden. She would not fulfill it talking about children.]
Pro sites a source, and gives reasons children might need to be circumcised. Pro counters this by what's necessary. Sometimes it's needed.
Pro’s defense:
Pro states: “My issue with Con is the blanket statement it should not happen, and then accepting that it is someone's choice”
^^^^ I wouldn’t call this part completely defense, but rather questioning con’s position.
[I think con is alright with doing so. Ex: Murder shouldn’t happen but it’s someone's choice. Theft shouldn’t happen, but it’s someone's choice]
Con themselves clears that up in round three, but until then..
The impression of this part of pro’s defense is really just: Since con accepts it may be a choice and medically needed though not able to consent at the time as well as the right to do anything with our bodies then con has failed their position of the BoP with contradiction.
So now, were left with pro’s side of two things once again:
1. Our bodies our choice
2. May be medically needed
FishChaser. Per the voting guidelines, you need to be more detailed about the reasons for your vote. I have flagged the vote, not because it was against me, but because it is not consistent with the voting practices here.
You can vote however you want, provided it is defendable. I have made a few mistakes voting, and I have been rightfully corrected.
Barney did not vote. You tag wrong person
Thanks for the vote and taking the time to read the content. Some interesting points, and I must admit I did not take this debate seriously because of the way the resolution was written.
ponikshiy R3
It 'does seem to me that actions have more often Burdens of Proof,
But I'm still treating Burden of Proof as neutral,
'Too many human actions,
Actions outside 'norm, one could argue are more action, than action within a norm.
I see 3rd interpretation,
That there are reasonable reasons for Circumcision,
Slainte has not 'yet made strong culture argument, though examples in culture were given,
Slainte 'has made medical exception argument.
I disagree with ponikshiy 'superstition claim,
Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
Saying "invisible sky fairy" irritates me, though an Atheist myself,
I view the belief in God, as more nuanced than that.
Still my irritation is sidebar, I'm just noting that emotion influences voting, though voting is 'supposed to be objective, humans are not, so much.
Still, line might work well on Anti-Theists.
. .
Of argument objectively though, Culture and Religion don't quite equivalate with superstition.
ponikshiy makes fair point that while Slainte shows examples where people endure pain,
Slainte could better show why these actions were 'worthwhile,
Though Slainte examples 'do erode ponikshiy claim that Circumcision 'must not be, because of pleasure focus.
Slainte needs better arguments for 'reasons, 'values, people take action of Circumcision.
ponikshiy accident argument is not strong without a better source.
ponikshiy makes fair argument of children an consent,
Though Slainte medical necessity argument 'does sidestep this a bit,
Vagueness of debate 'is a problem, though I will probably vote for 'generally 'speaking, Circumcision should or should not be,
I've been noting the vagueness throughout the debate, as it 'Does allow voters and opponent more room to define debate as they see.
Slainte R3
While Slainte 'has given those 5 reasons,
Only 'health did Slainte give in depth argument,
Not that Slaintes other reasons were 'bad,
But it would have strengthened them, to justify the examples more.
'Yes debate was bit vaguely put,
But vague debates aren't dangerous 'only for person making debate,
'Yes, Slainte gave reasons for Circumcision,
But Slainte did not justify them in depth,
People can have 'bad reasons for an action,
Having 'just a reason,
Is not as strong as a 'demonstrated justified reason.
Conclusion,
Debate is vague,
But I interpret the BoP on both,
Interpret debate 'not as legal action, but as good idea or not action,
In my view, ponikshiy went more in depth with justifying their points than Slainte,
While I do think Slainte has 'material for good points,
I 'don't think Slainte 'uses that material as effectively as they could,
Does not 'describe norms varying by culture,
Does not 'describe why body modifications are good,
Slainte gives examples, but does not 'follow through, is my view.
My vote goes to ponikshiy.
Lastly, because I like talking about my own views sometimes,
Here's an old debate of mine, via the WayBackMachine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20210802144543/https://www.debate.org/debates/Circumcision-on-male-infants-is-immoral-unless-medically-necessary./1/
ponikshiy R1
1. Mine feels fine.
2. Weird is subjective.
3. Accidents 'can happen, but need be proved common enough to be concern.
4. Needs be 'proven harm.
Slainte R1
Though adults might consensually modify their bodies,
Doesn't mean it's a 'good idea,
If one looks at it from some angles.
ponikshiy 'seems to be more arguing whether the 'action is good,
Than the 'freedom to 'take said action.
Ah, sneaky Slainte, "Nowhere in the description or resolution does is this argument restricted to children"
ponikshiy R2
I disagree that it's a forfeit,
If Slainte can give reasons for people to take the action,
Might push debate arguments into neutral, if not for Slainte's side,
I'm inclined to see Burden of Proof as 'neutral, myself,
But one 'can view debate as (There is no reason for circumcision),
I view it more as Circumcision vs NonCircumcision .
Silly superstitions 'everywhere,
But maybe this is nihilistic of me,
More normally speaking,
Slainte 'will need to address this argument by ponikshiy,
'Show necessity/reason/good of modification.
Slainte 'could stand to more address 'all of ponikshiy's 4 points in R1,
Though Slainte 'did address point 4 by sidestep,
And indirect addressed 2, by examples of what is normal varies in culture.
Slainte R2
Fair point, still time for Slainte to address points of ponikshiy R1.
ponikshiy has not made argument that Circumcision should be 'banned,
Slainte also needs to show 'reasons people do body modifications.
ponikshiy title and arguments are vague enough, that they can be seen as argument to take action or not,
'Not arguments that Circumcision should be banned.
Slainte 'does address accidents here,
Notes ponikshiy need prove data shows that Circumcision is dangerous.
. .
Slainte does not address ponikshiy source regarding accidents in R1,
But regardless ponikshiy source does not show complications as 'likely,
"death is an extremely unlikely complication of neonatal circumcision, but it has been reported."
Slainte makes medical necessity argument,
Though this is more in 'exceptional cases than norm of cases,
Debate is vague enough that this is reasonable argument,
Though ponikshiy arguments thus far 'imply they are thinking more of Circumcision for cultural or cosmetic reasons,
Well, this is reason people sometimes like well defined title and description,
(Though I am lazy debater myself)
Sorry that you have disgusting dick because of inconsiderate parents. Maybe one day you find girl with clit on the side of the vagina your dick is bent towards. If your dick is bent upward than please provide age if you are adult
Enjoying the pain is wrong. I mean, someone suffers. Besides, cutting babies, making them cry in pain and expecting them to be mentally same after is delusional at best. I never understood whats good about circumcised dick. I was one of those who was harmed by the surgery. Thats why I have bent dick. So yeah, definitely not a good choice for lover.
I enjoy the sounds of pain, but it is wrong for babies to cut dick, because when they grow up they will be less than ideal lovers.
I mean, its not like its a choice.
In most cases, it is done to babies.
Babies cant choose to be circumcised.
However, they do object to it by screaming in pain.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
You better not drop the ball on this debate sir!
American men have too much dick so they cut it. I don't know why.
Oh, what did poor Richard do to deserve this?