The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Cancer can be transmitted by medicine.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 303 times Debate No: 87212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Medicine is a form of science.


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. [1] 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. [1] 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.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 1


Do Xrays have cancer causing potential? Medical experts dispense Xrays. Case closed.


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". [1] 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". [2] 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.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2


One of 2 things, you either.....
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.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Max.Wallace 7 months ago
your ok. but, so wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarium 7 months 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:06 
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.