There is Likely No Conspiracy To Hide The Cure For Cancer

My opponent doesn't seem to be aware that circumventing the character-limit in a debate is considered cheating, and has opted to post his arguments in a google document. Seeing as I can't reasonably respond to 15,000 characters worth of arguments with only 8,000 characters without either misrepresenting my opponent or underdeveloping my own counter-arguments, and considering how much of his arguments are tangential or pre-emptively debunked in argument I've made in earlier rounds, I will instead extract any new arguments from his round and respond to them directly."with a cure you don't get returning customers"The money any individual actor in the cancer-treatment industry stands to make by being the only one with a cure is far greater than what they stand to make by limiting themselves to whatever market-shares they can manage to acquire via treatment. Furthermore, 1.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer every year [1]. You don't need repeat customers when 1. all current cancer patients will come to you, and 2. you'll be getting nearly 1.6 million new customers annually. "My opponent always forgets that it's the company and for-profit researchers that profits from treating cancer, not non -profit researchers."Why is this relevant? Is Con suggesting the for-profit organizations secretly control the non-profit ones? He needs some kind of evidence of that, merely asserting it isn't enough. Of course non-profit organizations won't profit from the cure; that's the point. They have no profit-incentive to keep it a secret, and their existence threatens the profit margins of for-profit organizations, because if they find the cure first, the for-profit organizations are likely to go under. "The company would want to stop the non-profit researchers from making the cure public, the company would probably just steal the cure from them and send a hitman after them, or bribe them with loads of money."Again, Con presents a "just so" argument. Just because something is hypothetically possible doesn't mean it's true or even likely. This didn't happen with any of the other diseases modern medicine has cured [2], so why would we expect it to happen, here? Con has no answer."This is a example, showing corrupt cancer charities. Take my advice and google " corrupted non-profit cancer charities", you will find a large amount of results. This shows that these " non-profit" charities, could actually be the " for-profit" charities in disguise, more of these " non-profit" charities continue to be exposed!"This may seem compelling at first, but keep in mind it only takes one honest non-profit cancer-research organization to break that cartel. Just like how an oligopoly can't gouge prices if it has even one competitor operating independently and selling at a lesser cost, so too can this hypothetical collusion of for-profit cancer organizations not afford to intentionally not produce the cure if there's even one non-profit organization not under their control, because sooner or later the cure will get out, and at that point it'll be too late for them to secure their position at the forefront of the industry like they would have been able to if they hadn't so foolishly assumed they couldn't make money curing the disease most sought-after to be cured. ConclusionCon has provided no compelling reasons to think that there exists some sort of collusionary relationship between all cancer-treatment/research organizations. Keep in mind, if the cure was known, then it would take the complete cooperation of all actors in the cancer-treatment industry to guarantee the cure never got out. Even one dissenting party looking to stab everyone else in back in order to market the cure themselves would ruin this cartel. Since that hasn't happened, it's reasonable to assume it's because no such cartel exists. Even if such a thing existed, Con has failed to convincingly show there is a financial incentive to keep the cure a secret. There is money in curing diseases, especially a disease as prolific as cancer. Finally, we already have several example of researchers curing diseases and those cures being released to the public. Either they're making money off these cures, which proves there's a profit incentive to curing a given disease, or they aren't in which case we have proof that the medical industry is willing to lose profits for the sake of mankind's betterment. In either case, we have a compelling reason to believe the conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer is merely a myth. At every stage of reasoning, this conspiracy becomes less credulous, not more. It requires you to assume 1. there's no money in the cure, 2. big pharma could successfully control every actor involved in treating cancer, 3. despite being willing to cure other diseases, the cure for cancer is uniquely considered worth hiding, and 4. these people would be willing to let themselves and their families die if need be to keep the cure a secret. If you don't believe any one of these things, you can't say that, on balance, it is likely there is a conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer, and therefore the resolution has been affirmed.VOTE PRO Sources:1. http://www.cancer.org...2. http://www.mnn.com...