The cure for cancer has already been found.

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 NoteBefore 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.DefinitionsEvery 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 ArgumentThis 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".ScienceCancer 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. ConclusionThe 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. Sources:1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...;2 - http://www.rice.edu...;3 - https://www.lls.org...;