>>2455560
>I don't want to repeat a million previous attempts on a dozen forums to refute all of those claims, but they are wrong.
"I'm not going to provide any evidence. Can we just say I'm right anyways? Yeah, I'm right."
>no difference in 'cleanliness' (levels of bacteria are vastly different, but a normal biome has bacteria, so what exactly does 'cleanliness' mean here and is less bacteria better? Evidence?)
A foreskin provides a warm, damp environment not exposed to air. A circumcised penis provides less of this. How is this controversial at all? It's simple biomechanics. You understand warm+moist+non-breathable = more bacteria, correct? As far as whether or not this is better, do some reading on 'balanitis' (more common in the uncircumcised). Read about the symptoms. Understand them now? Now tell us: is it 'better' or 'worse' to not suffer from those symptoms? Hint: if your answer requires minutes to type out, it's likely wrong.
>lower STD transmission - very misleading. The 'studies' that find this find a very marginal reduction
Putting 'studies' in quotes is a cheap trick to diminish your opponent's arguments without doing anything to seriously refute them. Be better than this. You haven't provided a sourced statement, so allow me: the CDC found that vaginal FtM HIV transmission was cut by almost 60% in the circumcised. 60% isn't 'marginal'.
>and their participants engage in 'high-risk' sexual activity, i.e. several partners, no protection and tend to be less educated.
No source, nothing to refute, I guess. You're like coworkers of mine who approach me and say, "Did you hear what THEY'RE saying now? You wouldn't believe what THEY'RE saying!"
>it's like claiming that a wound-up elastic band is a source of energy when a hydroelectric dam is nearby - yeah, /technically/ correct, but ridiculous in proper context
What's ridiculous is this metaphor. What in the world are you talking about?? Dams? "A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver."
