is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Circumcision is more harmful than beneficial

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2019 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 121104
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (44)
Votes (4)




100 babies in the U. S. A. Die every year as a result of circumcision.

Some babies even have their penis damaged or bent as a result of circumcision.

Circumcision is in great majority of the cases completely unnecessary to remove any suffering, As there is no any suffering to be removed.

Circumcision hurts. It actually hurts a lot.

It causes suffering and pain to the infants. They cry in pain. All of them.

Ok, In order to disprove me, Just name one logically consistent argument in favor of circumcision.

You cannot name:
1) Protection from STD
As small babies are rather unlikely to have sex and get STD, This argument doesn't make sense.
Not giving birth to a child is more effective method of protecting it from STDs, So maybe do that instead.
Regular washing after sexual relations and using condoms is a more effective way of preventing STDs.

2) Protects from prostate cancer
Barely an argument, Considering that this benefit, Which will only benefit a few people, Comes at a cost of damaging much more. So more people are damaged than saved from suffering.

3) Urinary infection
Again, Same way of refuting. Protection from urinary infections only affects small minority of the circumcised people, While in order to happen, A lot more people are damaged and suffer by circumcision.

"Furthermore, The studies in Denmark suggest indirectly that good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision. "

"most Australian surgeons find it difficult to justify circumcising 100% of the male population when only one per cent will benefit by reduction in urinary tract infection risk. "

"Circumcision does offer some health benefits to babies, Boys, And men, But only in a small percentage of the population. All surgeons know that circumcision, Albeit a simple operation, Is still dangerous and carries potential risks to the patient. As surgeons, We need to weigh up these risks carefully against the possible benefits of any surgical intervention. The surgical argument for circumcision of all neonatal males at present is very weak, And with rising public health standards in the developed world, Is likely to remain weak. These issues raise numerous ethical questions about surgery used as a social or religious custom, And as a potential preventive measure for possible diseases far into the future. "

h t t p s : / / j m e. B m j. C o m / content/30/3/238


Why did you make it only 1 round?

Anesthesia is provided for the babies for circumcision. Babies usually cry right after they are born. So they're already crying before the circumcision.

"As small babies are rather unlikely to have sex and get STD, This argument doesn't make sense. "
What you said just made no sense. Of course a baby will not have in sex in the first place. Protection from STD means it protects them when the male gets older towards adulthood.

"So more people are damaged than saved from suffering. "
Your standpoint was that babies are suffering. I understood that. Now it seems that you're saying circumcised adult males are suffering when that is not true. When someone is circumcised, It doesn't affect them the rest of their life. I'm circumcised and I'm just fine. Most people don't even remember things when they were a baby after they were born. This includes circumcising and how it feels to get circumcised. I sure don't remember. But I do not regret that I am circumcised.

Pros and benefits for circumcision:

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and herpes.

It reduces HIV risk by up to 60%.

For women, A circumcised partner may have a reduced risk of HPV, Therefore reduces the woman's risk of developing cervical cancer.

Circumcision protects against STI's and STD.

Uncircumcised penises can obtain much more bacteria than circumcised penises. The foreskin may be susceptible to infection. However, With good hygiene, That risk can be minimized.

Research indicates that the removal of the foreskin reduces sensitivity of the penis. Even the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is not as sensitive as an uncircumcised penis, But the reduced sensitivity of circumcision could allow men to last longer during sex.

Source: Circumcision Basics - Article | webmd. Com

If you need to respond, You can in the comments.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AIRhino 3 years ago
@SickInTheHeadz, You said in one of your debates that you would want a young sister that you could have sex with and when she got to the age where she could become pregnant, You'd make more children to have sex with. This is completely against your moral system.
Posted by anc2006 3 years ago
Finally Pro debates indtead of trolling.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
*rich coming from you.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago

Our sources were pretty much the same to me, I don't see how big the difference is. I got my information from my source and quoted a list. What he did was quote paragraphs from his source. What's the dfference? Lol. If you claim his is better how about going in depth saying why? If you care to that is. You might refuse because your pride is too big to humbly explain, All you would want to do is insult and be condescending. Then again, You're bias. Me and my opponent could create the same, Identical argument word for word and you'd nitpick it and call them right and call me wrong so.
"incapable of learning when you are wrong" how am I wrong lol. This is reach coming from you. You think you're right ALL the time and you don't let anybody explain their side to you. You're quick to rebuttal, Rebuttal, Rebuttal no matter the cost.

I can only think your reasoning is Pro quoted his source full link and I didn't. I can't put my full link because it won't let me make it for my argument. Anywho, Who gives a damn. Thanks for your vote!
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago

Don't cry that you are not able to know the difference between a good source from a bad one. It is good and it also good to know you are incapable of learning when you are wrong. Instead of dedicating what you just said to me why not actually look at Pro's source then compare it to yours? Oh wait I am on your mind too much for you to think about anything else. Okay. The feeling is not mutual and I am going to waste my time with the amount of characters you spent speaking to me.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
You don't want offspring. Okay it is your decision and I won't judge you for it. Everyone has their own opinions. I see your points, I have no other rebuttals. Can't be helped. I'm not the creator of humans, I can't stop reproduction. It is beyond my control. Happiness is a part of life, Sure. But life can suck. Life isn't always happiness and sunshine and flowers. A human can beat cancer and it never comes back or they can go through suffering or something traumatic and get over it. What someone goes through (not even cancer, Sickness or something to do with pain), It can be emotional pain, Like a break up, Divorce, Or loss of a loved one -- well I'll omit death of a loved one because some people will never get over that. Perhaps some will but others won't. Everyone's different. But certain situations can make someone stronger. A woman can become stronger after separating from a partner who has been abusive and many other things. Anyhow, Thanks for the debate I enjoyed it, Although I still wish there were more rounds. It would then give more things for voters to vote on rather than a single round. But nevertheless, I still learned something.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
"For you to be against child birth must mean you are also for abortion"
As soon as I created my moral system, Which is based on reducing the suffering, I changed my stance on many issues.
I am pro abortion. I am pro euthanasia. I am completely anti-child birth.
I think human suffering is more important than human life. In fact, I find human life almost meaningless. If it was just happiness without suffering, I could find the meaning. But when happiness comes at a cost of suffering, That I something I cannot accept.

So yeah, If you have a question like:
Would I end all life on Earth painlessly if I could?
Yes, I would.
Would I kill a person who is suffering terribly at the moment?
Yes, I would. If I had some way to kill that person painlessly. Or give that person something to ease the pain completely, Like drugs.
If there was a way for me to remove all pain from Earth, Even if it meant changing humans, Would I do it?
Yes, I would.

There, I hope that clarifies my position a bit, And explains why you cannot be completely against suffering if you still allow human life. By allowing human life, You will always allow some suffering.
Posted by SickInTheHeadz 3 years ago
@ Kvng_8
I agree, It was okay for you to challenge any arguments that I set. And I never agreed with the voting system, I think it should be removed.

I understand your point of view. You want to prevent cancer but only without diminishing human life. It is something that I have thought about in my moral system.

"Are you saying you aren't planning on having children ever in your life? "
That's exactly what am I saying. Even if I was the healthiest human, I wouldn't have children. But I am not the healthiest human. I have a lot of health issues, And those could easily be passed to a child. I will at least reduce suffering in the world by a tiny bit, Reduce it for my offspring at least.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago

Just because Pro laid out those points forbidding the opponent to say them, Doesn't mean he made more convincing arguments. For example, In an abortion debate, That's like opponent one telling opponent two, "You can't use the rape argument to make an excuse of abortion and you can't use the argument of the mother's health being at risk to make an excuse of abortion. " and you come and say "Opponent one made more convincing arguments because opponent two didn't do what they said and still used the rape argument and mother's health argument. " All you are doing is being biased and that's fine. Good job Pro for winning thus far.

"100 babies in the U. S. A. Die every year as a result of circumcision. " Out of everything you pick that? That somehow convinced you? One mere point I ignored lol okay.

Your source point didn't make sense. My source was properly sourced as well. Just like Pro quoted from their source I did the same. Learn how to vote.

Comment (3/3) This comment and lasted comment is towards omar. First comment is towards Pro.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago

I never take votes against me personally and I honestly don't care, But being the type of person you are and your history, There comes bias and inconsistencies. Your basis was my deciding to name my points even though Pro unfairly listed that Con cannot say "Protection from STD, Prostate cancer, And UTI" Pro only said that to help himself out to have the upper hand because he knew there were benefits to circumcision and he predicted the person who took up the debate was going to list them. They weren't even rules. I don't see the word "Rules:" listed anywhere in his argument. What he was trying to do is make it harder for Con, I suppose. But I didn't care. I still named the benefits because it helps my argument. What sense does it make for me to bow down and lower my performance to a debate? It's a common argument everyone uses for circumcision, Plus it's everywhere. The proper thing Pro should have done was 1. Make this more rounds. 2. Be an acceptance round. 3. Let me name all the benefits first. 4. After he sees me naming them, He then rebuts them. But to say I can't list certain things when they pertain to circumcision? Yes I can. I almost put in my argument "Yes, I will name them" but I deleted it because my list speaks for itself. It shows that I didn't care what Pro said, And I named my points. And another things, I didn't even mention UTI's or prostate cancer. All I mentioned was STD's and the rest of my points were completely different and way more than his three points that he listed. It's not like I took all three of his points verbatim and rebutted. I could have if I wanted to, But I listed more points to trump what he had.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's stance made it seem to me that he was arguing that circumcision was more harmful from a utilitarian perspective. The source brought in was a nice touch and does back up Pro's case that it benefits only the minority. Con did do a fairly good job in rebutting these points. He introduced a lot of benefits to circumcision and provided a source (albeit not as credible as the surgeon's report) in his argument. However, I found that there was a slight lack of analysis in comparison to Pro's case. The topic reads 'More harmful than beneficial' and Pro argued this because it only benefits a tiny portion of the population. This should have been addressed by Con because Pro's argumentation made it seem that the motion was talking about whether it was more harmful if circumcision was mandatory to all newborn males. This slight overlook by Con made his arguments seem less crystallized and Pro's argument still stands in the end.
Vote Placed by cfossedal 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a broad judgment on a specific practice. Initial basis of argument, "100 babies die every year of circumcision" doesn't hold water, because that's not the intended consequence of the operation, and newborns die frequently. If thousands die every year of slipping in the shower? You don't NEED showers to live. Speaking as a male, I'm glad I was circumcised as a baby rather than making such a choice later. This all came down to the real-life merits of the arguments for me.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason in the comments.
Vote Placed by Brendo 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I went into this debate with very little information about circumcision. I was against it, however con made some decent points and good rebuttals. Too bad it was only one round.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.