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

Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/4/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 86030
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




For Wylted and Bench's Outlaw Tournament

Comment if you want in, first round for acceptance, ffing for two rounds or more will result in an autoloss, as will plagiarism. Let's do this.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


The Argument From Multiverse

It is near universally agreed that the universe is infinite [1] and/or there are several universes [2]. The implications of such are obvious. Should the universe be infinite time-wise, there must be some sort of being that is capable of purposely or accidentally unleashing a cure onto not only Earth, but the entire universe. Statistically, it is unlikely that such a being would not use this ability.

From the point of an infinitely spaced universe or multiverse, the argument is essentially the same. Long distance travel must exist in some form with an infinite amount of possibilities, and therefore an infinite amount of cures must be headed straight to-- and connecting with --earth at any given time. There is simply no other logical position.

What must be happening to our cures, is a powerful force is stopping them. But, who gains from preventing the ensured health of billions of people? I wonder...

Big Pharma Does This Openly and Regularly

Despite a cure for certain cancers being long well known, any who promote them are jailed, and put on international watch lists with terrorists and murderers [3]. Why? Because it’s not copyright-able, and it’s not profitable. If the medical giants could slap a patent on it and monopolize on its effectiveness, any other “treatments” would be irrelevant by now. This is all but proven by the recent Martin Shkreli case [4], in which a drug that IS copyrighted had its prices inflated by over 50x nearly overnight.

The Ontological Argument

A cure for all diseases (including cancer), would be the greatest imaginable cure

A cure that exists and is known is greater than one that is purely theoretical

If we can imagine this cure as a hypothetical but doesn’t necessarily exist, we can imagine a greater cure

If we can imagine the cure, the cure exists

We can imagine the cure

The cure exists







Over 8 million people a year die of cancer worldwide (1). Millions more are suffering from pain and disability as a result of the disease.

If a cure existed, the potential to relieve human suffering would be immense. Anyone with a cure would release it to the world for moral reasons.

Morality aside, anyone who possessed the cure to cancer could get pretty much anything they wanted in exchange for it, money or opportunities. There's almost nothing they couldn't ask for. So the reasons for suppressing the cure would have to be even more compelling.

Pro has BoP to show that various cures are being suppressed. So far, Pro has not presented convincing arguments for suppression.

Debate Round No. 2


It is clear that my opponent failed to read my argument. A legit cure for cancer was discovered years ago, and the reason the guy that discovered it was jailed is because big pharma can't slap a TM sign on it. Chemo, while less effective, earns them way more money than a vitamin anyone would be free to sell.

There's not much else to say, so here are more of my reactions to Con's "argument":



Pro complains that I didn't respond to his argument properly, so I'll go through it in more detail.

He argues firstly about Greg Caton, a counterfeiter who served 33 months in jail for owning a weapon as a felon and for defrauding customers and other charges. Then, this guy broke parole and moved to Ecuador and claimed to cure cancer and was arrested for breaking parole. This does not prove that a cure for cancer exists. It just proves that a criminal tried to make money by claiming to cure cancer in Ecuador.

Second, Pro refers to the evil Martin Shkreli who raised the price of AIDS medicine from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill. This is not supressing a cure. This is making money from medicine, which is nothing new. If a cure existed for cancer, there would be people making money from it rather than suppressing it

Third, Pro argues that a cure for cancer must exist because he can imagine it. We all know there's a difference between imagination and reality.

Debate Round No. 3


Firstly, there isn't much I can say in regards to Greg Caton. Con makes several incredibly bold claims about his character and history without providing a single source. I will say that, should Con back his claims in the next round (after it is too late for me to rebut), it's not unreasonable to suggest big pharma trumped up some insane charges against Caton and then sent the FDA/FBI/whatever after him. This is even IF what Con claimed about him is true, which we have no reason to believe.

I apologize for not making my comments about Shkreli clear. What I had intended to get across was that the simple herb Caton discovered to cure cancer cannot be patented, so competitors would drive the price down, making it a poor investment for the medical industry. However, chemo, as a long term not very good pseudo cure, is sure to pay the big bucks.

And that's all there is to it. It's plainly obvious that, while I rely on logic and facts, Con has merely relied on slander and hope. Vote Pro!


Thank you to SeventhProfessor for this debate.

There was a lot of information about Greg Caton in the comments to the article that Pro referenced himself in Round 2. There, details of his criminal history can be found. Also, links to medical research articles that show that the substance he was trying to sell is actually dangerous to patients and has no demonstrable curative properties.

Pro has dropped all my arguments from round 2, and so we can assume he accepts that if a cure existed, people would be morally and/or financially compelled to share it with the world.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RainbowDash52 8 months ago
Tournament Judge Vote

Opponent: 4
Not very experienced, but has 1 win and no losses.

Arguments: 6
The argument for why pharmasuticals have an incentive to suppress the cure for cancer were solid. Also Pro defended Con's rebuttals explaining how you can't profit off of a medicine that can't be patented. Only downside is that Con showed that whether or not that medicine actually cured cancer is questionable. Also the multiverse argument needed more elaboration, and the Ontological didn't make sense.

Humor: 5
The first picture was pretty funny, but the rest of debate was really dry.
Posted by imabench 8 months ago
As the 'Simon Cowell' judge for this contest since I believe I know everything about anything, it is my duty to only reward points when a person has truly earned them and be a pretentious bag of d*cks in the process. So here goes

Opponent: 3

A debater who has less than 10 total debates on the site automatically puts him at a 5 at best. Con used very minimalist arguments in his debate rounds, i imagine he finished several thousand characters under the maximum limit since hie arguments were so brief. The fact that the con didnt forfeit a round is the only reason he didnt end up getting a 2

Arguments: 7

Arguments, though incredibly boring for the most part, were sourced and reasonable enough to make it seemed like he was trying to debate the topic seriously, and if he debated an actual idiot he probably could have won against them if sufficient trolling took place.

Humor: 6

I thoroughly enjoyed the pictures that Pro essentially ejaculated onto my screen in round 3, reading it was the equivalent of shooting heroin directly into my left testicle. Unfortunately for Pro, the funniness of his round 3 was heavily burdened by the incredibly dull arguments made in round 2 and 4, not a single which involved a wild conspiracy theory of any sorts. Does big Pharma use the money to light cats on fire for science? Does the cure for cancer cause diarrhea of the mouth or some other laughably gross side effect that would be the reason why it is suppressed? Pro resorted to run of the mill arguments for the conspiracy theory in rounds 2 and 4 rather than double down on looniness in round 3, so I can only award to him a 6 for humor since only 1 round of the debate was even funny

16/30, good practice
Posted by Hoppi 8 months ago
The outlaw tournament is where an experienced debater (PRO) reverse-snipes a noob (CON) and makes fun of them by having a ridiculous topic and arguing it in a funny way. People in the tournament are rated separately by judges on entertainment and cleverness. This rating is separate from the actual results of the debate. More information about the tournament can be found here:

Go PRO! For this first round he's up against this debate here:
Posted by TheRussian 8 months ago
What's the "outlaw tournament"?
No votes have been placed for this debate.