There is Likely No Conspiracy To Hide The Cure For Cancer

1. Con contends that we don't know how much money a company might make from a cancer cure. Firstly, this isn't an argument either way. Just because you can't think of a reason why there might not be more money in the cure, doesn't mean there's definitely less money in the cure. What Con fails to realize is that a cure for cancer would make almost the entirety of the cancer treatment industry as we know it obsolete, which means however much money there is in treating cancer right now would, after the release of the cure, all be going to whomever it was that made the cure, rather than having all that money be dispersed across the entire industry. That's the profit incentive. In a competitive market, firms battle for market-shares, and nothing allows you to soak up profit shares better than releasing a better product that makes your competition's services obsolete. Con mentions something about human rights activists not allowing companies to charge egregious prices for the cure. This is a "just so" argument [1]. Con has provided no reason to think these companies would over-charge on the cure, or even that they would need to. He just asserts this to bring up an irrelevant hypothetical. 2.Con responds to this point with a non-sequitur. It may or may not be true that researchers and health care corporations have an antagonistic relationship (Con hasn't actually shown this, he merely asserts it), but this is irrelevant. The point of my argument is that the existence of non-profit cancer research shows that there are players in the cancer industry who can't be temped to deliberately hide the cure for cancer for the sake of profit margins because they've already decided they aren't interested in profiting from their research. For this reason, for-profit cancer treatment corporations actually have an enormous incentive to find and market the cure for cancer as quickly as possible, because if a non-profit organization cures cancer first, they go out of business and lose out on all the potential market-shares they could have had.3.My opponent talks a lot about how cancer researchers don't make money from treating cancer, the corporations do. This isn't true (the researchers who cure cancer would undoubtedly become rich) but even if it was, this is actually an argument against Con. If Cancer researchers don't stand to profit from treating cancer anyway, then what reason do they have to keep the cure a secret? Just to continue lining the pockets of their greedy corporate overlords? That seems incredulous. The meat of Con's argument here is that "money changes people". He's essentially arguing that, yes, corporate leaders would allow their friends, family, and even themselves to die of cancer to keep up profit margins (again he assumes there's no money in curing cancer). I guess it will just come down to what you, the voter, thinks; is it more likely that cancer-treatment corporations love money more than the lives of their families and even themselves, or is it simply the case that the cure for cancer hasn't been found yet?4. Con argues that this is a debate, and therefore he's not expected to provide evidence for his claims, merely his opinion. While it would be unfair to expect Con to provide hard-hitting proof that the cure is known, keep in mind that the BoP for this debate is set at the balance of probabilities, meaning >50%. All Con has to do is provide enough evidence and reasoning to suggest it's more likely than not that the cure is known an intentionally being kept secret in order to win. Unfortunately, simply pointing out that there's a lot of money in treating cancer and stating his opinion on the topic is not enough to meet this burden. I strongly urge the voters to consider all relevant factors, not just a single number void of context, when considering whether or not they think there is a conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer.ConclusionCon has provided no new evidence or reasons to suggest there is a conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer exists. His argument relies entirely upon pointing out that there is money to be made in treating cancer and from there he conjectures that this is enough to justify a believe that such a conspiracy exists. This argument fails to be compelling and, more importantly, fails to meet the BoP. While Con has yet to give a convincing reason to believe this conspiracy actually exists, I've given several reasons for why such a conspiracy not only likely doesn't exist, but why it can't exist. When all relevant facts are considered, it is clear there is no grand conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer, and so the resolution is affirmed.VOTE PROSources1. https://en.wikipedia.org...