Cancer can be transmitted by medicine.
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate.
Pro has only allowed an extremely limited amount of characters, so I'll get right to it.
Transmission of cancer through medicine is impossible as cancer is a disease that cannot be transmitted.  The only exception to this is that there is the possibility of an extremely rare case occurring wherein a cancer could be transmitted through transplanted organs or from mother to unborn child while the mother is pregnant.  Otherwise, cancer cannot be transmitted in any way.
In conclusion, it is scientifically impossible for cancer to be transmitted through medicine. To uphold their resolution, Pro will have to provide evidence to support the assertion that it can be transmitted. As of now, Pro's resolution is effectively negated.
There are only 1,000 characters per round; I'll keep this brief.
1) X-ray =/= A type of medicine. Pro is arguing that medicine can transmit cancer. By definition, medicine is, "a substance that is used in treating disease or relieving pain and that is usually in the form of a pill or a liquid".  X-rays do not fit this definition.
2) Cause =/= Transmit. Let's assume that X-rays are a form of medicine. Even then, it cannot transmit cancer as it does not have cancer in the first place. It can slightly increase the chance of getting cancer, but cannot transmit it. By definition, transmit is "to send or convey from one person or place to another".  So to transmit something, the transmitter must have what is being transmitted for it to be considered a transmission.
Pro's resolution remains negated because they have not proved that cancer can be transmitted through medicine.
A) Write your own definitions and proclaim them as fact.
B) You copy someone else's definition and proclaim it as fact.
Which is it?
Pro uses their last round as a red herring and attacks something almost irrelevant to the argument. The definitions I used are cited as definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary, which is a reliable source. Despite that being clearly shown in my Round 2 argument, Pro attacks those instead of my actual arguments.
To lay the whole debate out real quick, Pro asserts in Round 1 that medicine can transmit cancer. I refute this statement in my Round 1 by showing how it's scientifically impossible for cancer to be transmitted through medicine. In Round 2 they bring up the point of X-rays, which is refuted in my Round 2 arguments. In Pro's final round, they attack the cited definitions I used to support my arguments and ignores the actual arguments, leaving them unrefuted.
In conclusion, Pro's resolution is effectively negated and they have not uphold their burden of proof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarium 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: All points to Con, except spelling and Grammar, both were good. Pro did not answer any points, just asserted his point with no proof, just observations from his perspective. Conduct, as Con actually replied to his opponent, whilst Pro simply poked fun. Arguments to Con, only one to supply arguments based on fact, not observation or ideas that cannot be proven Sources - Dictionary reference as the only source, however nothing from Pro's side was referenced at all, so sources to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.