The cure for cancer has already been found.

Seeing as the debate structure prohibits rebuttals in this round, I will refrain from doing so and will simply outline various current methods of cancer treatment and why they cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer", thus fulfilling any possible BoP I may have. The methods I will cover will be chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and of course, immunotherapy. However, to do so we must first understand precisely what cancer is and what it is caused by, as well as define the word cure. Definitions Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy - Merriam Webster Unless my opponent disagrees with this definition, a cure will be defined as such. Cancer[1] Every human being consists of trillions of cells. These cells must divide and grow in order to maintain life. As cells become damaged or grow old, these new cells must take their place, while the old and damaged cells die off. These divisions are done in an orderly and safe manner as is dictated by your genes. However, from poor genes and mutations in one's DNA, cancer arises and it does not follow the aforementioned process. As Cancer. gov states: "When cancer develops, however, this orderly process breaks down. As cells become more and more abnormal, old or damaged cells survive when they should die, and new cells form when they are not needed. These extra cells can divide without stopping and may form growths called tumors. " Now that we understand what cancer is and its sources, we may look into the effectivity of current cancer treatment methods. Chemotherapy Chemotherapy employs the use of cytotoxic drugs to stop the division of cells. This is done through various means such as ensuring that cells do not use the nutrients needed in order to further multiply,or by interfering with the genotype (genetic makeup) of the DNA and therefore stopping the abnormal division of cells. This method is most effective on cancers that divide rapidly[2]. However, chemotherapy cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer" as it is not always effective among patients, therefore being incomplete. For example, many leukemia patients do not find success with chemotherapy. After chemotherapy stops the rapid cell division within these patients, the patients go into remission. However, a renewed cancer arises from cells that do not divide as rapidly and are therefore resistant to chemotherapy[3]. As this treatment method does not result in “a complete or permanent solution or remedy”, it cannot be described as the cure for cancer. Ionizing Radiation Radiation, or more specifically ionizing radiation, creates ions by taking the electrons of atoms and molecules within the body. Doing so either damages the DNA of these cancerous cells directly, or creates highly reactive molecules called free radicals, which damage the DNA of these cells [4][5]. However, there are various cancers that are resistant to radiation. Proof of this can be seen in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which states: “Ionizing radiation treats many cancers effectively, but in some patients a few tumor cells become resistant to radiation and go on to cause relapse and metastasis. ” [6] As a result, ionizing radiation clearly isn’t a complete or permanent solution to various types of cancers, and can therefore not be referred to as a “cure for cancer” Surgery As you likely surmised, surgery physically removes the tumour by literally cutting it out of the body. Yet, as is commonly known, it is rather ineffective among the later stages of cancer as the cancer has spread to other parts of the body [7]. Furthermore, hematological cancers such as leukemia are not solid and can therefore not be cut out in these conventional means [8]. Also, surgery can leave behind some cancer cells which results in the cancer returning to the patient [9]. As shown, surgery like the other methods of treatment, is neither permanent nor complete, and cannot therefore be described as a cure for cancer. Immunotherapy Finally we come to immunotherapy, which will likely be a central aspect of this debate. We cannot make presumptions on immunotherapy. We must know exactly what it is in order to conclude its effectivity against cancer. I will attempt to do so in the following paragraphs. The immune system naturally protects one from various cancerous cells[10]. However, malignant tumours only form when your immune system is either unaware of the cancer or dampened from the cancer itself [11] . Cancerous cells have found a number of ways to evade our immune system. One manner of doing so would be their use of PD-L1, a protein that activates a pathway which effectively suppresses the immune system and its response, allowing the cancer to thrive [12]. This allows the cancer to effectively evade one’s immune system. Immunotherapy works by using drugs such as Keytruda (pembrolizumab), which effectively blocks these pathways in order to allow the immune system to fight cancerous cells [13]. However, not only are these methods restrictive to only a few types of cancer, they are ineffective among a majority of patients. To understand this discrepancy, we must understand how our immune system fights these cancerous cells. Some tumour cells exhibit microscopic molecules that identify the cell as foreign and therefore trigger an immune response, referred to as neoantigens[14]. Since this has been identified as foreign, your immune system responds accordingly and seeks to remove these substances (at which point using the PD-L1 protein allows the cancer to survive). However, among a majority of patients, there are either not a sufficient number of neoantigens or the cells which exhibit these neoantigens are not sufficiently distributed throughout the tumour to invoke the necessary response by the immune system [15]. Therefore, even by removing these blockades that the cancer has used, your immune system cannot respond and the cancer continues to survive. For this reason, immunotherapy is not a “a complete or permanent solution or remedy”, and cannot therefore be labeled as a cure for cancer. Conclusion As has been showed, the 4 main treatments of cancer have not matched with the definition stated for a cure. These treatments are either insufficiently complete (they are specific to only a select group), or are insufficiently permanent (they do not treat all patients indefinitely). Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that the cure for cancer has not currently been found. A majority of this may have seemed impertinent considering the case my opponent is trying to make,but the rules dictated that I could not directly respond. As a result, I could only try to cover all my bases, even those that seemed impertinent. I expect a riveting discourse as this debate continues. Thank you. Sources 1. . http://www.cancer.gov... 2. . http://patient.info... 3. . http://www.redorbit.com... 4. . http://www.cancer.org... 5. . http://www.cancer.gov... 6. . http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org... 7. . http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... 8. . http://www.cancer.gov... 9. . http://www.cancerresearchuk.org... 10. . http://www.cancer.ca... 11. . http://www.breastcancer.org... 12. . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 13. . https://www.keytruda.com... 14. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 15. . https://www.statnews.com...