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

The cure for cancer has already been found.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Cobalt has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 260 times Debate No: 94194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)





Round one arguments
Round two rebuttals
Round three defend your argument against opponent's rebuttal.


I. Intro
II. Science
III. Conclusion
IV. Sources

I. Intro

The cure for cancer is a whole foods plant based diet as seen in Healing Cancer from Inside Out [1] and Forks over Knives.[2] The prototype was Gerson's Miracle, which is often mocked. Nevertheless, Mr. Gerson paved the way for a safer and cheaper cure.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to back this up. Not only that but, a whole foods plant based diet helps prevent cancer in the first place. Antioxidants help prevent DNA damage via free radicals.

I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, so here's the science below. Focusing on the prevention first, since an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Benjamin Franklin.

II. Science

First, lets look at what causes cancer. Cancer is caused by free radicals damaging DNA. Antioxidants are free radical scavengers who halt the free radicals from damaging the DNA. [3] Many of the most potent antioxidants, Beta-carotene, come only from plant sources. [4] Supplements don't seem to work either, instead beta-carotene must be taken at dietary levels. [4]

Great, so eat your fruits and vegetables and get some protection via antioxidants against free radicals.

There is more, fruits and vegetables contain phytonutrients and fiber which are only found in plants. Fiber has been known to help maintain a healthy weight. [5] Being obese is a risk factor for cancer. [6] Phytonutrients also help with weight and thus help prevent cancer. [7]

Not only is there plenty of benefits to eating a plant based diet, but you also displace the detrimental. By avoiding meats, you avoid cholesterol, high fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, and bacteria endotoxins.

Cholesterol even in small amounts is detrimental to human health. [8] High fat leads to build up of intramyocellular lipids. Saturated fat increases blood viscosity making your heart work harder and making you sluggish. Hard to keep down the weight when your slowed down by sluggishness.

IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one, causes cancer cells to grow more quickly. Bacteria endotoxins found in animal products cause an immune system respond and inflammation. If your immune system is attacking bacteria endotoxins, it can't be attacking cancer cells.

The cure, I've stated why a plant based diet helps prevent cancer. Most of this information is more or less common knowledge on prevention via diet. Yet, what about the much more bold claim of a cure? The cure is very simple, boost your body and your immune system will destroy the cancer cells, thus curing yourself.

That's right, the cure is your white blood cells, the ones that are destroyed by chemotherapy and other invasive treatments. [9] As seen in this peer reviewed link cytotoxcity of the body's Natural Killer white blood cells is double.

As seen here, white blood cells attack cancer cells. "White blood cells can also attack cancerous cells that are traveling in the blood stream. " [10] The official medical term is immunotherapy. [11] Yet, the basic principle is the same as Mr. Gerson's the Gerson Miracle.

III. Conclusion

Strengthen the immune system and have the immune system eradicate the cancer. Key points

Plant based diet
keep the weight down
don't smoke
let your immune system do the work

Thanks for reading. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.

IV. Sources


As a brief note before I begin, the opponent structured this debate such that round one was for arguments, two was for rebuttals and three was for rebuttal responses.

This structure cannot be followed -- not because I am unwilling , but because it is not possible to follow this structure with the provided resolution. As opposed to resolutions in which both Pro and Con both have a case to make (e.g., "What's the best car"), this resolution is structured such that Pro makes the case and Con argues against it.

More formally put, the opponent is making a positive (affirmative) claim and, as such, possesses the sole burden of proof. As Con, it is not my obligation to prove that a cure does not exist (proving a negative), but rather to show the opponent's case does not sufficiently meet the burden of proof.

As such, I'll be responding to the opponent's argument immediately, since there is no other course of action for me to take.


A Brief Note

Before getting to the meat of the argument, I'd like to point out that the opponent is using a common strategy known as "information overload", which is a strategy in which large amounts of evidence are provided, with the attempt to make the case seem more legitimate to a voter who isn't paying too much attention.

This isn't to say the evidence itself isn't legitimate. Rather, the opponent's claims should not be considered true just because he has X amount of sources, since those sources might only be tangetially related to the issue at hand. I will point out where the opponent has extraneous evidence and where he is lacking it.


Every good debate needs good definitions. Based upon an interaction in the comment section, I feel it's important that we understand one key term: "cure".

Merriam-Webster defines "cure" as "something (such as a drug or medical treatment) that stops a disease and makes someone healthy again". [1]

A "cure" differs from a treatment, since a cure has the following qualities:

(a) It works in nearly all cases.
(b) It works on someone once they already have the disease, making it go away.
(c) It effectiveness is repeatable and consistent.

A treatment, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have these qualities.

Consider the disease influenza. To date, no one has created a cure to the flu because flu vaccines cannot remove the disease once you have it and because the vaccine does not always prevent the flu.


Lastly, let's discuss how disease prevention and disease cures are two fundamentally different things.

Disease prevention methods exist for a wide variety of diseases. The ability to prevent a disease does not translate to being able to cure it.

For example, suppose that an STD is only transmitted via unprotected sex. If everyone in the world used protection all the time, no one would ever get an STD. However, it cannot be said that we cured this particular disease. Eradicating a disease is not the same as curing it.

Thus, even if the opponent manages to prove that a particular diet will stop people from getting cancer, his burden of proof is not met until he proves that this diet consistently and reliably destroys cancer in someone who already has it. (This distinction is important, but we will see the talking point won't come down to this. I will demonstrate that the opponent's diet does not prevent cancer in all cases.)

Summary of Opponent's Argument

This summary serves the purpose of insuring that I know what the argument is exactly. If the opponent sees I have misinterpretted something, I urge him to correct me.

The instigator argues that the "cure for cancer is a whole foods based diet", which goes by the moniker "Gerson's Miracle".


Cancer occurs due to a mutation of one's DNA. "Free radicals" are most often the cause of this.

A free radical is an atom or molecule which has an unpaired electron, meaning it is highly reactive. Free radicals come from a number of places and are most often formed when oxygen reacts with certain molecules.

Note that oxygen is responsible for free radical generation, meaning that antioxidants naturally stop the chain reaction that can occur when free radicals start interacting with important compounds in the body.

The larger, more highly controlled studies do not yet have conclusive results on how well antioxidants prevent cancerous growths, but the resuls are already implicating that the risk of cancer is not significantly reduced in high antioxidant diets. [2]

This makes sense from a logical perspective, too. Your body is constantly inundated with oxygen, meaning free radicals are always forming. If you've been reading this for five minutes, then you've already breathed in over 40 liters of air. Oxygen makes up about 20% of the air particles, and you absorb about 25% of that oxygen. This means that you've gone through 2 liters of oxygen in the time you've been reading this.

Antioxidant intake, on the otherhand, is comparatively much more rare. It is not biologically possible to take in the amount of antioxidants required to destroy all the free radicals you're constantly creating.


The opponent also refers to excersize as helping reduce the likelihood of getting cancer. While this can't be denied, the fact that many very healthy people get cancer and die from it indicates that we certainly can't call exercise a cure.

Finally, the opponent moves from his prevention evidence to what he calls the cure -- that being white blood cells. The opponent does present evidence which correctly claims that white blood cells will attempt to attack cancerous cells in the blood stream, but he fails to realize that a great many cancers do not originate in the blood.

Blood cancers make up only 10.2% of all cancer. [3] Even if we were to believe that the white blood cells were capable of defeating all cancerous cells ever to enter the blood, that still would not constitute a cure to cancer.


The opponent cannot meet his burden of proof, as "a good diet and exercise" does not trigger any bodily mechanism capable of reliably and consistently killing cancer. Notably, the opponent didn't present any evidence regarding how this treatment would help people who already have cancer.

In short, antioxidants cannot be consumed at the rate necessary to destroy all free radicals. If we pretend that white blood cells are able to catch every ounce of cancer in the blood, they still are not able to cure some 90% of all cancers. We don't even have any evidence suggesting this treatment works on patients who already have cancer.


1 -;
2 -;
3 -;
Debate Round No. 1


Round 2 rebuttals

I. Intro
II. Alternate routes for Con
III. Information overload
IV. Definition of cure
V. Disease prevention
VI. Free radicals and antioxidants
VII. Exercise
VIII. White blood cells and cancer in blood stream
IX. Conclusion
X. Sources

I. Intro

Thanks for accepting the debate. My opponent attacks whether or not I fulfilled my side of the burden of proof. Claiming I haven't provided enough evidence that the combination of diet and exercise are enough to be a cure versus a treatment.

That means my opponent has already conceded some ground, in the sense that a plant based diet and exercise do have some affect on cancer. In contrast many opponents claim a plant based diet is not even a treatment. We will fight over the ground between a treatment and cure for the remainder of this debate.

II. Alternate routes for Con

Con could have taken many routes. Example, "if there really is a cure why is not x, y, and z true"? Nevertheless, my opponent makes a reasonably good case as why to deviate from the structure, and thus I accept my opponent reasons as sufficient. Therefore, I will address my opponent's round 1 rebuttal.

III. Information overload

I do agree for the average high school student my round one argument would be information overload. Yet, cancer is a complicated disease and the situation warranted this course of action. Furthermore, if I had twelve scientifically peer reviewed articles stating a whole foods plant based diet & exercise cured cancer I would have used them and this debate would be drastically different.

The problem is like a syndrome that is composed by numerous detrimental factors, a healthy lifestyle cure is composed of many beneficial factors. Alone, these healthy lifestyle actions act as only a treatment or a preventive measure. Together, they form a cure. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary for me to present this case in the format in round one.

IV. Definition of cure

I agree to your definition of cure. Though the word "nearly" does leave some room for interpretation. Here's an example of a disease being cured. "Patients treated with appropriate antibiotics in the early stages of Lyme disease usually recover rapidly and completely. " [12]

Therefore, just as there is a cure for Lyme disease if caught early enough there is a cure for cancer if caught early enough. Advanced stages of cancer should be excluded because this would put an unfair burden of proof on me. Think about it, many other diseases with cures cannot be cured if the disease progresses beyond a certain point.

V. Disease prevention

Preventing cancer from spreading is very important. It is common knowledge that a person can have cancer in more than one place. Also, because cancer cells are living and will die eventually, simply halting the spread of the disease will eventually eradicate the cancer within the individual, thus curing the person. If you contain a weed to a small area, eventually the plant will die off. Since the weed was unable to spread, you eradicated the weed.

I contend that giving the nature of the disease, cancer can be cured via potent preventive measures. Furthermore, if a surgeon surgically removes cancer from place A and then the cancer spreads to place B, I would not call this a cure. If however, the cancer was unable to spread to location B this would be a cure. Therefore, just a doctor often prescribes multiple medicines and methods, a healthy lifestyle can be used in combination with surgery to cure the disease.

VI. Free radicals and antioxidants

The body has an incredibly efficient DNA repair system. [13] Antioxidants don't need to stop every free radical, only reduce the number of free radicals. Btw, your [2] link and [3] link do not work for me.

VII. Exercise

"The opponent also refers to excersize as helping reduce the likelihood of getting cancer. While this can't be denied, the fact that many very healthy people get cancer and die from it indicates that we certainly can't call exercise a cure." Cobalt

This is easily the weakest statement in my opponent's response. I never claimed exercise can cure cancer within itself. Exercise in combination with a plant based diet acts as a cure. If I said water, H2O, could perform x action, and you said Hydrogen cannot perform x, this would be an ineffective rebuttal. Same here, exercise alone acts as a treatment. When enough treatments are combined they form a cure.

VIII. White blood cells and cancer in blood stream

This is a great start because cancer often spreads via the blood stream. How else would cancer be in the lung and suddenly spread to the foot? Think of the diet as a quarantine. If you quarantine a disease long enough, eventually the disease will be eradicated.

IX. Conclusion

"The opponent cannot meet his burden of proof, as "a good diet and exercise" does not trigger any bodily mechanism capable of reliably and consistently killing cancer. " Cobalt

Cancer is a living cell and will die off eventually if it cannot spread. "It was a view that was hard for some cancer doctors and researchers to accept. But some of the skeptics have changed their minds and decided that, contrary as it seems to everything they had thought, cancers can disappear on their own." [14]

"Notably, the opponent didn't present any evidence regarding how this treatment would help people who already have cancer. " Cobalt

Simply stopping the spread and/or slowing the disease helps a lot. There is plenty of testimonial evidence. [1][2]

"We don't even have any evidence suggesting this treatment works on patients who already have cancer. " Cobalt

There is copious amounts of anecdotal and testimonial evidence of people being cured on this diet. [1][2] There is also plenty of scientific evidence to show that various lifestyle activities raise or lower the risk factors for cancer. The only piece that is missing is lots of scientific evidence showing that people are cured of cancer via healthy lifestyle. Thanks for the debate.

X. Sources
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cobalt 2 months ago
Hey, I really liked your response. It was one of the highest quality responses I've had in a debate here, actually.

I'll be able to respond to this soon.
Posted by Stupidape 2 months ago
Going to take awhile to read through. Usually my opponent takes the low carb or troll route. So, I don't have a response already formed. Will be interesting since you took an entirely new and an unexpected angle.
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Thanks for accepting Cobalt, you usually make very good arguments. I can't wait to hear your response. I figure what good is an idea unless you test it in a debate.
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 months ago
in the Q&A section
Posted by Edlvsjd 3 months ago

read question 6
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
I'm pretty sure cure is the correct term.

"a. A drug or course of medical treatment used to restore health: discovered a new cure for ulcers.
b. Restoration of health; recovery from disease: the likelihood of cure."
Posted by Cobalt 3 months ago
No one would say we have a cure to the flu, due to the very fact that treatments aren't 100% effective. Maybe you should consider changing the term "cure"?
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
This diet can do both cure and prevent. Though obviously just like any treatment its not going to be 100% effective in 100% of scenarios. For example flu vaccines reduce the chance of getting the flu by 70%-90% according to webmd.
Posted by Cobalt 3 months ago
Unless you are arguing that this diet will completely prevent all cancers no matter what, in which case I'd take Con.
Posted by Cobalt 3 months ago
You should be careful. The ability to prevent cancer and the ability to cure cancer are two very different things.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.