thbt it will find a cure for cancer
Debate Rounds (3)
My name is Donia I'll be your speaker for the day. we are gathered here today to discuss an important topic that has a life or death situation stuck to its name. this house believes that we will eventuality find a cure for cancer, which has only been strengthened by the undeniable fact of the success that institutions in our very country have dealt with such is the case regarding the treatment of pediatric leukemia which has reached a 98% cure rate this very day, another example is pediatric low grade glioma which has reached in this country up to 87% cure. moreover on average in all types of cancer it has reached 85% in USA.
How is it possible, with this striking difference between numbers over a short period of time, to be under the illusion that we are making any sort of progress against the disease?
As I mentioned before, cancer is a family of diseases that are very far from having constant characteristics and specifications. With every second that passes, cancer cells evolve more and more into an oblivion of deadliness that scientists cannot keep up with, let alone cure.
I believe that a cure for cancer is a very general and unattainable statement. A disease of this proportions is as terrifying now as the plague was when it first showed up, except that cancer is much more brutal, and as time goes on and more of our resources get wasted on pointless and quickly rendered outdated research, the disease grows more and more brutal, claiming more lives because we're too busy chasing after the dream of a cure, rather than directing our efforts towards prevention and making patients' lives easier through managing the disease as much as possible.
I would like to shed light that a report by the National Cancer Institute negates what you said, and i quote "the disease grows more and more brutal, claiming more lives because we're too busy chasing after the dream of a cure" ; it states that rates of death in the United States from all cancers for men and women continued to fall between 2001 and 2010. and to press on what you have failed to realize that the prevention of a disease is part of the cure of said disease.
In addition to my previous points which proves that we are on our way of curing all cancers progress is being made, awareness campaigns are being conducted to prevent the occurrence of the disease which is part of curing it.
Additionally, while some cancer patients do survive after surgeries, the rates of recurrences are way higher than those of survival. So, what are we doing? Definitely not finding a cure, but rather delaying the inevitable.
It is important to remember that the fact that death rates are falling (again, very slowly) does not in any way indicate that people are suffering less or that the disease is getting closer to an end. On one side we have death rates falling, and infection rates sky-rocketing. Where is the progress if all we do is delay the death by a number of limited years? The only progress that could be considered effective is when cancer patients live long enough after their cancer has been "cured" to die of other causes.
What use do we have of awareness campaigns if the problem is still there? If I tell people in an awareness campaign that you could get cancer through exposure to toxins or radiations, will that solve the problem of the existence of these things? Our environment is becoming way too hazardous to human life and it's all of our doing. The war on cancer is now more than 40 years old. I believe it's about time we start paying attention to those hazardous factors we're adding to our environment instead of trying in tiring futility to cure what they have produced. Evidently, in a less polluted Earth, cancer would not be as huge of a threat as it is now.
Back in the day influenza killed people, to this day people still do get influenza; however we have managed a cure; therefore people will get cancer and we will manage a cure.
It was ridiculous what you said concerning death; whether i die after having survived cancer or die having never gotten cancer is irrelevant to the topic in hand.
I guess you do not understand the purpose behind an awareness campaign that is making people aware of the problem so they can fix the problem, and i would also like to educate you that our environment whether it is ruined by us to the point of no return or not only should push us that much further to try and save what we can otherwise what is the point of life in the first place if you are just willing to throw it all away without even trying. you might have personally given up but not the rest of the human race.
referring to your earlier arguments If Martin Luther King Jr. never dreamed then no equality would have reached the streets of USA today. You cannot say that chasing a dream is a futile matter because as human nature has taught us dreams are how we make history.
Ladies and gentlemen I would like you to leave you with four words that has never been more true WE ARE CURING CANCER.
If this treatment, relied upon by millions of cancer patients, is proved to be only temporarily effective, how can you claim that we are curing anything? I don't think 98% cure rate is a correct statement; perhaps 98% delay rate would be closer to the harsh truth.
Half of patients now survive cancer for at least 10 years, after which a recurrence almost certainly ensues. Cancer still causes more than one in four of all deaths. This goes to show how we're only, again, delaying, not curing.
The example brought up of influenza does not in any way match up with the case of cancer. For one, influenza is not a disease that is evolving with time. Its symptoms and effects are known and treatable. If this virus were to mutate tomorrow, humans would face another horror. But it doesn't, and that's what makes it incomparable to cancer.
No therapy will work on the long term for cancer, simply because the nature of the disease is unpredictable and constantly evolving.
What we should be doing is to employ our resources into filtering our environment of hazards in the only effective effort we can exert to minimize infection with cancer. Perhaps with a less polluted environment the disease will be given a lesser chance of evolving. But until that happens - until we know what cancer is going to look like tomorrow and how it will be behaving - there cannot exist a definitive cure for over a 100 forms of an ever-evolving disease striking nearly all ages, races and body types.
If what we've been doing for 40 years was of any positive effects, we would have seen better results than merely the delay of death and the patients living in constant panic and fear of recurrence.
Thank you for tuning in, ladies and gentlemen.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a very strong argument saying that we WILL find a cure for cancer, not we HAVE the cure for cancer. It was also backed up by him stating that having a dream and being ambitious will make history. Con's futile rebuttal failed to negate the resolution
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.