The Instigator
Trapeeze
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Cure for Cancer

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...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 118 times Debate No: 107076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Trapeeze

Pro

Cancer can be cured through a threading technique that a skilled surgeon can perform!

My argument is that cancer can be cured in the present day.

Lymph nodes can be rubbed and pulsated to reach an orgasm of toxic build-up; a smoker would benefit from cleaning their lymph nodes this way.

The same technique can be used to clear build-up in the throat, jaw or lungs.

Cancerous tumors can be broken down by using a needle to pressure, quiver and un-thread the tissue which contains the collected fluid - it's a slow process, but within a day a cancerous tumor can be removed by an apt hand.

My case is that cancer can be cured in the present day using the method I've explained.
theta_pinch

Con


It seems my opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what a cancerous tumor is. The pro is describing a cancerous tumor as a swelling of tissue containing harmful fluids. However that is not what cancer actually is.

In all cases, Cancer is a type of illness where cells in the body divide out of control causing damage to surrounding tissue. Due to the uncontrolled division, the cells can move to spread to different parts of the body making it even harder to treat.

According to the National Cancer Institute:

"Many cancers form solid tumors, which are masses of tissue. Cancers of the blood, such as leukemias, generally do not form solid tumors.

Cancerous tumors are malignant, which means they can spread into, or invade, nearby tissues. In addition, as these tumors grow, some cancer cells can break off and travel to distant places in the body through the blood or the lymph system and form new tumors far from the original tumor."

Thus two problems are clear with the Pro's method of curing cancer. First a cancerous tumor is primarily a mass of tissue, not fluid. Even if a tumor did happen to contain fluid the dangerous part, the cancer cells, would be left behind. Second cancer cells can spread to nearby tissues. So even if it were possible to destroy the tumor the way my opponent suggested, it would not guarantee the removal of cancerous cells that have spread from the initial tumor making it likely for the cancer to come back. Indeed, often Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy is to ensure all cancer cells die so the cancer can’t grow back after the tumor has been surgically removed.

Ultimately my opponents method of curing cancer cannot work due to cancerous tumors not having the properties necessary for the method to have effect, and even has properties that make it uniquely ineffective as a one operation cure for cancer.

To prove the method they advocate, the pro must either provide scientific studies showing it is a valid technique to cure cancer, or disprove the ability of cancer to metastasize and prove that the danger in cancer comes from fluid within tumors instead of the cancer cells.

https://www.cancer.gov...
https://www.cancer.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
Trapeeze

Pro

If Con's argument that cancer's are masses of tissue, this tissue can be depressurized and broken down slowly using the pressure, quiver and un-thread technique.

Though Con may be correct in writing that dangerous fluids may spread further disease, the method I've outlined is lightweight and fluids can be controlled in the curing process. If fluid control is deemed too difficult, then a more apt surgeon is required, not a new technique for removing tumors.

Cancer can be cured; masses of compressed tissue can be decompressed part by part, and the tumor can be removed safely.

If anything the pressure, quiver and un-thread technique makes it easier to control fluids.

Radiation therapy is used to try and break the tumor; pressure, quiver and un-thread technique can definitely break the tumor. however, as Con quite rightfully put, dangerous fluid must be controlled.

If not a direct cure for cancer, the method of my argument can be used to replace radiation therapy with a greater success rate.

My case is that the method does work, tumors can be broken and removed; and if dangerous fluids can be controlled, it's a working cure!
theta_pinch

Con

"Cancer can be cured; masses of compressed tissue can be decompressed part by part, and the tumor can be removed safely."--Pro
"Though Con may be correct in writing that dangerous fluids may spread further disease, the method I've outlined is lightweight and fluids can be controlled in the curing process. If fluid control is deemed too difficult, then a more apt surgeon is required, not a new technique for removing tumors."--Pro
These two quotes demonstrate the crux of the pro's misunderstanding.

The first quote is basically a description of surgical removal but adding another step of 'decompressing' the tissue (what exactly does that mean?).
The second quote shows my opponent still misunderstands the nature of cancer. The danger of cancer comes wholely from the unrestrained cell growth of cancer cells. The unrestrained growth creates masses of tissue that can damage organs, nerves, blood vessels, and so on. Most insidiously if cancer cells break away from the mass of tissue they can travel through the bloodstream to other parts of the body and grow new tumors. As far as I can tell cancerous tumors do not have any fluid to remove, benign or toxic. Since this is a major point in the pro's argument it must be cited that cancerous tumors contain fluid more often than not, and that is a problem that need solving for surgical removal.

To actually cure cancer it isn't enough to simply remove a tumor; any cancer cells that may have broken away from the tumor and spread also have to be destroyed. Modern surgery can already surgically remove a tumor; the pro has not shown the 'pressure, quiver, and unthread' technique has benefits over modern techniques of surgical tumor removal, or that it even works at all.

"If not a direct cure for cancer, the method of my argument can be used to replace radiation therapy with a greater success rate."--Pro
My opponent has yet to prove the efficacy of the method being argued so this statement is entirely unqualified. Furthermore the pro has yet to address cancer cells that have spread away from the tumor. Radiation and Chemotherapy are used to kill these stray cancer cells to make it less likely for cancer to return. It's practically impossible to detect the cells until another tumor has formed from them so a manual technique is out of the question.

My opponent still makes grand claims for their 'pressure, quiver, and unthread' technique but has yet to back up those claims with any hard evidence. Further they have not provided any solution to cancer cells that have spread beyond the initial tumor and continue discussing 'dangerous fluids' which the pro has yet to prove is actually a problem with cancerous tumors. Any claims of a cure for cancer must be effective against cells that have spread away from the tumor, and indeed it seems the pro's method has no mechanism to handle those cells.
Due to continued unsupported claims and a method which ignores the very nature of cancer and lacks even a theoretical mechanism to deal with it entirely, the resolution continues to fail.
Debate Round No. 2
Trapeeze

Pro

The method was designed to remove tumors, but is maybe not a cure for all of cancer cases; in lesser cases it can be used safely, and in higher cases it can be used with risk.
theta_pinch

Con

The pro began this debate with grand claims of a method to cure cancer. Throughout the debate the pro has failed to provide any sources for their claims. Any cure would have to be able to remove both the tumor and destroy cancer cells that have broken away, and indeed the pro side admits their method is only able to remove tumors and not even in all cases.
However the technique described does not even remove tumor; it is described as being intended to make them safer to remove. This is not a cure even if there weren't numerous problems inherent in the nature of cancer that make the technique ineffective. Thus the resolution fails on all accounts.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 1 week ago
Leaning
Trapeezetheta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to use sources to back up his arguments. Sorry for no convincing argument vote, I find RFDs difficult. I found Con more convincing, but lack words to say detailed why.