Resolved: Having Cancer is a choice
Debate Rounds (3)
Con is against the claim that having cancer is a choice.
This is a troll debate for the Plebians who didnt pick up on that
1) Cancer is not natural
It isnt.... Where in the Bible does it say that having Cancer is natural? Cancer being natural and not a choice isnt in the Bible ANYWHERE so people are choosing to have Cancer
2) People who have cancer causes other people to have cancer
If one person has cancer and it is considered to be 'acceptable', then others will come forward and have Cancer too, because having cancer is a choice
3) God wouldnt make people who have Cancer
God is all powerful and all good, so why would he make someone have Cancer? He wouldnt! So people must be choosing to have cancer because God certainly wouldnt make someone who has cancer...
4) People who have cancer cant reproduce
Marriage is meant for reproduction, and people who have cancer cant reproduce. Therefore it is a perversion, a choice, and shouldnt be allowed
5) Cancer Parents will raise Cancer children
Pretty straight forward
6) Cancer on top of not being natural also isnt supported by religion
No religion condones cancer or acknowledges its existence so how could cancer be natural? It isnt, because Cancer is a choice
7) Legalizing Cancer will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior
Once people are allowed to have Cancer, other things like having Aids and Herpes will also become legal! We cant let that happen!
8) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home, and having cancer changes that
Children only function when they are raised by parents who dont have Cancer. Those who are raised by Cancer parents may be confused in their life and not be fully functional.
9) Cancer marriage will change the foundation of society.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time and is the bedrock of society in America. If you legalize Cancer Marriage then the fabric this country was founded on will be changed forever
10) Civil Unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better
People who have Cancer who are a part of Civil Unions will have all the same benefits as people who are married, which is better then actually letting Cancer couples get married since it preserves the sacredness of marriage
11) Marriage is defined in the Bible between one man and one woman, nothing about cancer
The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and someone who has cancer, or a woman and someone who has cancer, therefore people with cancer shouldnt be allowed to get married
12) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Cancers are allowed to get married
Its just a perversion of what Marriage is!
1) Cancer: As Natural As the Flesh it Destroys
It really is...Cancer isn't named per say in the Bible for the mere reason that the name "Cancer" was only relatively given but the affliction of leopards don't dispel its existence in the Bible
2) Cancer Hopping: Left to Everything BUT Human Choice
It has been scientifically proven that Cancer effectively "Cancer Hops" from one once prime host to the next member of society for fresh ground leaving trails of "Minor Cancer-ettes" in its wake leaving the original person still afflicted while the "Chief Cancer" has gone to new grounds.
3) Cancer for a Higher Purpose
God IS all powerful and all good which is WHY he deals out Cancer. He does it for either the growth or benefit of the person or someone in the persons life. People in need of help often don't admit it, so God allows them this extra push.
4) Childless Marriages
There are couples who CHOOSE to not have kids, or CHOOSE sterilization, but non of which CHOOSE Cancer. If marriage was truly for reproduction, those who choose not to have kids would simply choose to have Cancer giving them a reason to fulfil what they want.
5) "Cancer Hopping" Yet Again
Also straight forward here, parents are in constant close proximity with their kids therefore opening the window for the involuntary spread of Cancer
6) Cancer and Religion
Cancer is natural (my point in #1) and although it isn't SUPPORTED by religion, it is subtly addressed and is taken like any other tribulation in the Bible as a growing/learning experience.
7) You Can't Outlaw something that Isn't a Choice
Since Cancer is so obviously something that isn't chosen, it would unconstitutional to have it outlawed in the first place. If we outlaw something as basic as Cancer we might as open up the high security prisons for people who chose Dwarfism.
8) Children Will be Fully Functional
Children raised by Cancer ridden parents grow up function like normal children. If anything, children of Cancer parents grow up to be BETTER off for it having more tolerance for the world around them for those with and without Cancer.
9) Change is Good
That kind of traditional thinking is the same argument used to keep women and African Americans from being a functioning, equal part of society, but strides in their favor have bettered our country. And if my opponent had the bedrock of America in mind, he would've kept in mind that our society was founded on the premises of freedom and equality, both of which are impeded if Cancer Marriage is continued to be outlawed.
10) Further Segregation
There is nothing disgraceful or unsacred about two people with Cancer getting married. It wasn't their choice to have Cancer and denying them the same opportunities as those without Cancer is unconstitutional and immoral.
11) Marriage is About Love
The Bible is all about love, and marriage is all about solidifying that love. Someone with Cancer shouldn't be denied either.
12) It's About the Love
The only perversion of Marriage is anyone founded on the basis of something other than love. Cancer should not be a factor in this!
Thanks for reading :D
I had my suspicions at your second point but I DEFINATLY knew it was at point 5 about the "cancer parents raising cancer children". I complete LOVE your approach at this rather than sticking "lets debate gay marriage" title which could bring closed minded people with an unrelenting mindset to argue completely RIDICULOUS points. And if you don't change anyone's stance at least you'll have at least SOMEONE rethinking their argument points against gay marriage. Something logical and arguable!
And, yes my friend, REALLY f*cking stupid!
And you're welcome, I enjoyed it :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Welp, Pro said it. His arguments sucked. And then he compares homosexuality to cancer, that insensitive pig. jk but still a concession.
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.