The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

Cancer is good for the United States of America

Do you like this debate?NoYes-11
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 13 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,122 times Debate No: 12216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (13)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Resolved that Cancer is good for the United states of America. I will argue the pro side. I do not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and would like him/her to start with arguments.
Mirza

Con

I strongly disagree that cancer is good for the United States of America, and will make some arguments for my side, which is con.

-- Definition --

Cancer: "An abnormal growth of cells which tend to proliferate in an uncontrolled way and, in some cases, to metastasize (spread)."[1]

It is not a contagious disease.

-- Content --

• 1. Statistics
• 2. Costs of Cancer
• 3. Effect on People

-- Arguments --

• 1. Statistics

According to American Cancer Society[2], 565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths.

According to the same source, an estimated number of 1,490 children from the age range of 0-14 years died due to cancer the same year.

• 2. Cost of Cancer

According to National Institutes of Health[3], a total of $228.1 billion was spent on cancer treatment in the year 2008. This number is ultimately high, and if it was reduced by even 50 percent, there would be more money for treatment of other diseases, and more money could actually be invested in research. It should also be noted that due to lack of proper health insurance in the United States, many people are unable to get treatment.

• 3. Effect on People

Cancer is a deadly disease, and affects a high number of people. Cancer can cause e.g. fatigue, which is excessive tiredness. Due to this, a person who suffers from cancer cannot live properly, and if he works, he cannot earn a living. This has a bad effect on the individual, a society, and the economy. I may elaborate this point in the next rounds.

-- References --

[1]http://www.medterms.com...
[2]American Cancer Society, http://www.cancer.org...
[3]National Institutes of Health, http://www.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

--Definition--

Cancer: the fourth sign of the zodiac: the cardinal water sign. [1]

This is not a disease (nor is it contagious).
---Refutations---
"565,650 Americans died due to cancer in the year 2008, which is around 1,550 people a day, and yearly, cancer causes one out of four deaths." (& all other points)

Wrong, the 4th sign of the zodiac will not kill anyone, there is no evidence supporting that a zodiac symbol will destroy people.

All your points are invalid.

---Arguments---

1. Cancer

Cancer, meaning "The Crab" is the 4th symbol in the zodiac calender. I will prove today, that this symbol benefits America.
Individuals born when the Sun was in this sign are considered Cancerian individuals. Under the tropical zodiac, the Sun enters Cancer on the moment of summer solstice by definition, or roughly on June 21, leaving it around July 22. Under the sidereal zodiac, it is currently roughly from July 16 to August 15.

2. Positives

People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving,
Intuitive and imaginative,
Shrewd and cautious,
Protective and sympathetic. [2] These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America.

Thank you for accepting this debate and I await the next round.

---Sources---
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.astrology-online.com...
Mirza

Con

My opponent did not refute my arguments, but instead, he provided arguments for a totally different definition of "cancer." However, I will prove why his arguments about cancer are totally invalid in this debate.

-- Rebuttals --

• 1. The first post in Round 1

My opponent wrote at the beginning of the debate that "[he does] not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors."

Already there, it is clear that he refers to cancer as something harmful, hence the mention of cancer victims and survivors.

• 2. First post contradicts his second

If you look at my opponent's post in Round 2, you will realize that he speaks of something positive, not negative. He said, "People born during the time period stated above (according to the zodiac) Emotional and loving,
Intuitive and imaginative,
Shrewd and cautious,
Protective and sympathetic.These are good traits no? The more Americans born during cancer, the more good people there are in America."

How is this compatible with his statement in Round 1? At first, cancer is something you are a victim of, and suddenly, cancer is something positive that create intuitive, emotional, loving, imaginative, shrewd, cautious, protective, and sympathetic people. This is a contradiction, hence invalidating my opponent's arguments.

• 3. I provided the first definition

Since I was the one provided the first definition of "cancer", and he made absolutely no indications of any other definition of cancer, particularly not in the resolution, then it is for him to refute my arguments about my definition of cancer, and not come up with a new definition and evade all my points.

• 4. His source contradicts his argument

My opponent refered to a source[1] which is in conflict with his argument about his definition of cancer not being a disease, and only something positive. While his source does not directly state that it is a disease, it does mention that "Cancerians" are more liable to certain diseases:

"Cancerians are said to be liable to breast cancer and to suffer from pleurisy, dropsy, piles and varicose veins. The excitability mentioned above can lead to weak digestion, gastritis and other stomach ills, and there is a tendency to coughs and weakness of vision."

So even by using his definition, we can say that "cancer" is a bad thing for the United States of America.

-- Conclusion --

My opponent turned the debate around, which is invalid. I came with the first definition, his first post referred to the disease called cancer, not some random, superstitious definition.

-- References --

[1]http://www.astrology-online.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

I will refute my opponents arguments as he numbered them.

1. I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease.

2. It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease.

3. "I provided the first definition"

The first and the wrong, definition.

4. Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90.

--Conclusion--

My opponent thought this debate was about the disease cancer and not about the zodiac calendar, I clearly was trying not to offend anyone who had clicked onto this debate and automatically VOTEBOMB ME because of what side I took on a topic that seemed like I was promoting death. My opponent accepting this debate said "I will surely start!" clearly showing his eagerness to start a debate for an easy win on a topic that he did not consider to look into in his haste.

Therefore we can conclude that haste makes waste, and pro wins.
Mirza

Con

-- Rebuttals --

1. "I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease."

I see absolutely nothing in post one suggesting that the discussion topic is not about something you can be a victim of, hereby a disease.

2. "It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease."

This is, again, false.

"Resolved that Cancer is good for the United states of America. I will argue the pro side. I do not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and would like him/her to start with arguments."

How does this make anyone think that it is not the disease cancer that is being talked about?

3. "The first and the wrong, definition."

How can I provide the wrong definition, when my opponent never indicated that it is the wrong definition, nor came with one himself?

4. "Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90."

The consequences on being born in the alleged "Cancer" period are not just being mean, or anything similar with regard to personality.

"Cancerians are said to be liable to breast cancer and to suffer from pleurisy, dropsy, piles and varicose veins. The excitability mentioned above can lead to weak digestion, gastritis and other stomach ills, and there is a tendency to coughs and weakness of vision."[1]

Breast cancer, for example, is not a danger to lives?

-- Conclusion --

My opponent played a bad game with me, and presented no valid arguments, nor rebuttals. I provided the first definition, and he did not indicate any other whatsoever to invalidate mine before I posted it. In fact, even with his own definition, and assuming that his arguments are valid, he has still presented a contradictory argument/source, and an erroneous one. I have explained it above.

Vote with the right judgment to whoever you feel has won this debate.

-- Reference --
[1]http://www.astrology-online.com...
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
naw...
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
The debate is over, you played bad semantics, and if you want to win this kind of a debate, then start a new one with someone.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
it does. I wouldve said, 'its not just bad for the us, it's bad for te worlld, therefore the resolutuion is negated.'

in this I found myself in a bad situation, so resorted to bad semantics
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Lol
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
It does not help your case.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
People! I totally screwed up the wording, itt was supposed to be 'cacer is bad for the us' annd I wouldve taken con.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
His conduct was bad, because he played semantics. He made semantical arguments. He used unreliable sources. Spelling & grammar is somewhat arguable.

I made the first definitions, he did not. It was his own fault. Actually, it was not if he did it deliberately - which was the case.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
True but you did kinda jump in, he didn't use definitions in his first round, he led people to believe one way, but generally I see anyone giving 7 point votes as vote bombers; the only time I did such a thing I was dubbed a vote bomber, and still am.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
He did not. This is not true at all. He played bad semantics game and lost it. He could have made a somewhat good case without semantics. I expected that.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Looks like you did get vote bombed anyway RL.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
RockylightningMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:32 
Vote Placed by Officialjake 6 years ago
Officialjake
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
RockylightningMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningMirzaTied
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:51 
Vote Placed by sidobagga 6 years ago
sidobagga
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by turdfu13 6 years ago
turdfu13
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
RockylightningMirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by whatledge 6 years ago
whatledge
RockylightningMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03