American men cutting dick
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Con's position is that men should not resort to genital mutilation on the basis that.: It leads to less sexual pleasure for men, a cut penis isn't aesthetic, that an accident could lead to the inability to have good sex.
Pro contests this on the basis that people have the freedom and the right to do whatever they want with their body.
However, Pro says that genital mutilation is sometimes performed for religious reasons and that the resolution only addresses adult men and their choices. And that adults should have the freedom and right to make whatever choices they want.
Con urges that people should prioritize science and reality over superstition, arguing that superstition has been used to justify throwing babies into fires. Con also extends their round 1 arguments. Con also acknowledges that men have the right to make their choices, but that it isn't a good one.
We get into the final round and while it is too late to impose a framework, Con makes valid points that the BOP is with Pro. Pro also elaborates that the resolution and description is too vague, but the description does explicitly state that the decision to cut one's penis is a bad decision. Hence, the resolution is obvious that Pro must defend that a man should cut his penis, or that it is a good decision. Since Pro doesn't really argue his side or meet his BOP and only argues that it is a person's own right. I cannot give them the win.
Con's position is that cutting dick is an objectively bad decision that could have negative consequences, not that it should be banned or illegal.
The topic was "American men cutting dick".
Pro talked about circumcision. Since circumcision is not the only thing included in dick cutting, it follows that Pro didnt satisfy the burden of proof there.
However, the right to mutilate bodies does seem like an argument that works, about as good as the argument about the right to suicide. It was funny that someone actually advocates about the right to suicide. Based on being funny, I give it a tie.
RFD in comments.
1: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4600/comments/55110
2: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4600/comments/55111
I don't see a great way to interpret the resolution that doesn't give a huge advantage to either Pro or Con. Both sides focus on specific cases and argue to place most of the burden on the other side. The resolution doesn't specify "some men" or "all men," so a lot of discretion is left to voters.
I'm siding with Pro on interpretation of the resolution, since it's very vague. Technically the resolution refers to "men," so a literal interpretation would negate the inclusion of minors entirely. But Pro doesn't bring this up, so I'll rather default to the specifications in the description, which states, "This not something should be done." This seems very close to a blanket statement, so Con only arguing about circumcision on minors seems like a bait-and-switch. Pro gives a lot of reasons why people might choose to be circumcised which to them would outweigh the risks, and Con does not succeed in showing that, in general, circumcision should not be performed. It seems implied to me that if someone has a good reason to do something that outweighs the risks, we can't say that they ought not to do it. Utility is subjective, and Pro succeeds in showing that some people may be rational in making decisions based on tradition.
Reason for vote in posts #9 and #10, of this debate's comments.
In order for Pro to win, he has to win these 4 arguments...
1..Sexual Sensation: While some individuals claim that circumcision may reduce sexual sensation, studies on this topic are inconclusive and arbitrary.
2..Aesthetics: Same as above.
3..Risk of Complications: While all medical procedures carry some level of risk, the overall risk of complications associated with circumcision is acceptably low when performed by trained healthcare professionals in a sterile environment.
4..Autonomy and Consent: Infants cannot provide informed consent for many routine medical procedures, including vaccinations and other interventions aimed at protecting their health. Parents or legal guardians are entrusted with making decisions in the best interest of the child's well-being. Circumcision, when performed for cultural or religious reasons, is often seen as a reflection of the parent's beliefs and values. Many parents consider circumcision to be a positive choice for their child as a part of overall cultural acceptance.
So...did Slainte convince me? Let us see!
Early on pro makes an argument for point 4 that there may be cultural reasons and also says "Sometimes it IS a good choice because it is medically necessary." but Pro did not state that consent isn't needed if there's little harm traded for the benefit of cultural acceptance...I'll give pro a neutral grade on this... didn't pass or fail on this one. But that means he definitely has to get the others right.
""not feel good" on itself is insufficient reasons to justify an outright cultural ban." This is Pro's main argument for the "not feel good" argument. This is really shaky. No studies cited, just a blanket statement. Pro didn't even bother to say that sensations are personal and not easily measured. At this point, Pro would have lost the debate here and now...but Pro pulled a magic card and somehow managed to say this at the end.
"Con's own comments referencing friends and general statements show that the debate is based on the social interpretation, not the personal."
This is sufficient to win on points 1 and 2. Well done Pro..well done.
Now onto point 3.
This is Pro's argument:
"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"
An utter flop of an argument. No studies, and not even a hint of a justification of the balance of good over risk regarding cut dick. Pro fails this point entirely. Sad day.
So let's tally up...A draw on one point, failed on one point, passed on 2 points. Somehow, Pro managed to barely squeeze out a win here. I am really ashamed to have to vote and give pro a win for such a poor performance, but the score is what it is.
Pro wins on arguments (barely). Con wins on sources, sadly there is no source point to award.
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?