Independent poll on another forum resulted in the following:
26% preferred a circumcised man.
52% uncut.
22% had no preference.
From a sensitivity aspect, anyone uncut can attest to how sensitive you are to any external friction. If being cut didn't decrease the sensitivity, wearing pants would be a very uncomfortable thing.
Not saying one is better than the other, just that I think it's pointless for the most part, and unfair to force it on to babies.
Sensitivity increases when the bloodflow increases (if you get my drift!) any man who has had it cut will know that getting a semi and trying to walk causes some fairly unpleasant friction making pants very uncomfortable.
In the end it's one of those questions where the only people who can answer it properly is a man who spent a significant amount of their adult life uncut and then an equally significant amount cut. Those of us who had it done when they were young children, be it medical or religious or other, don't know the difference and an uncut man can also only speculate.