Resolved: Various cures for Cancer are being suppressed
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.
The Argument From Multiverse
It is near universally agreed that the universe is infinite  and/or there are several universes . 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 . 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 , 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.
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.
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.