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

Cancer is genetic

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: 12/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 84158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




So, in my days of and schooling, I have heard many arguments of cancer being caused by a bad diet or some other stuff. This is not the case, my first argument starts here. Cancer is caused by a gene being damaged and a cell not being able to fix it. This is mostly genetic and is held in the DNA. Other factors can cause a risk for cancer such as RADIATION. Although, dieting is not in this list. Also, a person who's family has a history of cancer has a high risk of cancer as it is held in the persons hereditary information.

With this stated, I will wait for con's rebuttal.
Rules- no trolls (Akhetan can join but do not be a troll and actually cooperate)


1. The burden of proof is on Pro, as he brought the claim.

2. I generally deny each and every fact asserted by Pro.

3. Pro's case is completely unsubstantiated at this point as Pro thus far hasn't presented any evidence.

4. Consequently, Pro is losing as he has thus far failed to meet his burden of proof.

Debate Round No. 1


govitz147 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


govitz147 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


govitz147 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


govitz147 forfeited this round.


That's all folks
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Curious78 10 months ago
If cancer is genetic how do you explain the following:
1) Methyl-deficiency? Methyl-deficiency is not caused by DNA damage, DNA damage is a symptom of methyl-deficiency. Methyl-deficiency is found in all cancers and is caused by diet, contrary to your opinion.
2) Thousands of studies show how natural plant compounds 'selectively' kill cancer cells without harming normal cells. How is a plant compound able to identifiy the difference between a cancer cell DNA expression that differs from a normal cell DNA expression? And how is it that apoptosis re-occurs when the DNA 'cell death gene' is allegedly damaged beyond repair? This indicates that the DNA cell death gene is not damaged at all highlighting that DNA is not the cause, if you assert that the DNA cell death gene is damaged and the cause of cancer how are natural plant compounds able to once again allow the cell to commit apoptosis via the cell death gene?
3) How does DNA explain the failure of the mitochondria or the FADD receptors (immune system cell death mechanism) to commit cell death when both are outside of DNA control?
4) How does DNA explain blood vessel growth, metastasis, galectin-3 and nagalase expression ? It doesn't.
5) The fact that the genetic theory cannot explain all of the Hanahan and Weinburg hallarks of cancer proves beyond any reasonable doubt that DNA is not the cause - how do you explain this?
6) The national cancer institute provided figures on the validity of scientific experimentation in to cancer and discovered that up to 80% of all studies cannot be replicated...they are simply incorrect.
I propose that cancer is suggested as being hundreds of genetic combinations as a direct result of medical scientists attempting to make cancer fit the genetic theory rather than acknowleding that it is caused by something else and that they have got it wrong.
Posted by Curious78 10 months ago
Hi all, I would argue that cancer is not caused by DNA. It is not proven, it is assumed the cause by association only. DNA is a symptom of another cause.
Posted by govitz147 10 months ago
Yeah thank you. People always say something about this guys "holy water" or something. It's completely dumb.
Posted by AngryBlogger 10 months ago
Good luck to whoever accepts this challenge lol....

Kinda proven already without doubt that cancer is genetic, and it would be nearly impossible to prove it isn't.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheResistance 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF