CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The most common cause of cancer is smoking, which can be dealt with(the rate of smoking is shrinking due to campaigning), however starvation will always the there, and more die from starvation rather than cancer. So I would end Starvation
No one chooses starvation. I know no one literally chooses cancer but a lot of the actions people take, can lead to cancer, and a lot of them know it already. If I have to choose with this power to stop anything, to save someone from a fate they didn't knowingly choose, or to save someone from a fate they did I'll choose those who didn't know.
Starvation is a disease which hits mostly poor people... Cancer is a wealthy people disease, since it usually occurs to people when old. So I'd choose starvation, because, even if it is a quicker problem to solve, it still exists, since we are a lot more occupied in searching for cancer cures than solving such a "stupid" problem as starvation is.
Cancer is a disease everyone can get. If your family has a history of Cancer, then there is a good chance you're going to get it whether you are wealthy or not.
it usually occurs to people when old
And starvation usually occurs to people in third world countries. Those people aren't just starving because they can't find food. They're starving because they are poor, their government is corrupt, and their economy sucks... not to mention that most of them live on land that isn't as fertile as ours. You need to fix those problems first if you want to end starvation.
So I'd choose starvation, because, even if it is a quicker problem to solve, it still exists
Starvation is due to hunger. We have a cure for hunger. It's called food. We don't have a cure for cancer. If someone came up to you and said they have the cure for cancer but they also have a way to end starvation; you'd choose starvation? Keep in mind that for the sake of this debate, you can only choose one. You'd have the chance to prevent a future full of cancer-related deaths. What good would it do if the people who suffered from starvation ended up dying from cancer?
since we are a lot more occupied in searching for cancer cures than solving such a "stupid" problem as starvation is.
What makes you think that the same people trying to cure cancer are the ones who should be ending starvation? Cancer is a disease; starvation is not. Like I said before, starvation is a result of many other factors. You need to solve those problems first if you want to end starvation.
I agree with the majority of what you said, however I don't think all the no-longer starving people would all develop cancer. Starvation affects communities, cancer does not and is more random. Sure, we can cure hunger, but we haven't because of the problems you've listed. If those problems were gone and the economies were better, more money could be put toward cancer treatment. However, if we cured cancer, there' still be starving people and their problems such as corrupt government and bad economies would persist.
Then why are you disputing me man!? Lol I was hoping you wouldn't interpret what I said as meaning every person who is no longer starving would get cancer. That's not what I meant.
I have disputed you because you make it sound like the benefits of ending starvation might be balanced or outweighed by the negative circumstances of the same people dying of cancer. I think the circumstances of the formerly hungry getting cancer is are so small that they are not worth mentioning.
I have disputed you because you make it sound like the benefits of ending starvation might be balanced or outweighed by the negative circumstances of the same people dying of cancer.
Well, I obviously think that cancer is a bigger problem or I wouldn't be debating you. To be honest though, you are probably right. I didn't need to mention it. It was just my way of trying to further justify that cancer is a larger issue.
"And starvation usually occurs to people in third world countries."
Ah, ok, but then, what?
"Starvation is due to hunger. We have a cure for hunger."
Yeah, of course we have. And i see you cure starving people everyday, right? What do you say about that?
"What makes you think that the same people trying to cure cancer are the ones who should be ending starvation?"
Probably the fact that the only ones who can HELP poor people ending their starvation are us, the rich ones, and, by chance, the same ones who are searching the cure for cancer.
"Cancer is a disease. Starvation is not."
Ok, congratulation! But let me tell you that most probably the reason why you chose cancer is that you have definitely more probabilities to get it than people living in third world countries. If you were one of those billion starving people, you would probably think it different. And there is more: you are starving and you know the cure for your problem is food; you see people living in cities, some miles away from you, eating all day long, everyday, all the year long. Cancer is still more important?
You said cancer is a "wealthy people disease" and I said it is one that everyone can get. It's not just limited to the wealthy. What don't you understand?
Ah, ok, but then, what?
Did you even read the rest of my argument or did you just highlight the beginning of each point?
Probably the fact that the only ones who can HELP poor people ending their starvation are us, the rich ones, and, by chance, the same ones who are searching the cure for cancer.
Scientists won't be in charge of ending starvation. Like I said earlier, there are many other factors that lead to starvation. Those need to be dealt with first in order to end starvation.
Ok, congratulation! But let me tell you that most probably the reason why you chose cancer is that you have definitely more probabilities to get it than people living in third world countries
Once again you respond to a single sentence and don't bother addressing the rest of the argument. It's important to read the entire argument; especially if you are going to reply with sarcasm.
I chose starvation because it is a disease. Don't get me wrong, starvation is horrible but in order to get rid of it you need to change the countrie's government, change the land, change the economy, and change the mindset of the people there. There are people out there trying to end starvation but it's difficult when you are in a country that is facing a civil war.
If you were one of those billion starving people, you would probably think it different. And there is more: you are starving and you know the cure for your problem is food; you see people living in cities, some miles away from you, eating all day long, everyday, all the year long. Cancer is still more important?
It's not a "billion"... and of course I'd think of it differently if I was starving, but I'm able to look at the big picture because I'm neither starving nor suffering from cancer.
25000 people die from starvation everyday, and about 20.000 die from cancer everday. So I guess we save more people by ending starvation.
Also ... hate me for saying this if you want. I would rather die from cancer than starvation.
Cancer is awful - but the awful thing is usually the treatment. You can have some great months before you get really sick and die short time after.
Hunger .. To be at a point where you die from hunger if you don't get anything now that must be really really awful. But I guess we have different opinions on this :)
25000 people die from starvation everyday, and about 20.000 die from cancer everday. So I guess we save more people by ending starvation.
Starvation is mainly found in third world countries. Cancer is Worldwide. At the moment, starvation can be prevented while cancer cannot (and I know there are articles and shows that provide ways to prevent certain cancers, but if it is in your genes then you're likely to get it).
Also ... hate me for saying this if you want. I would rather die from cancer than starvation.
Cancer can dramatically reduce your appetite; which can lead to death. I witnessed a man go from just below 300 pounds to 100 pounds due to cancer. He had gotten so thin that his tail bone started to emerge through his skin. His stomach shrunk due to his weight loss and he lost most of his strength; which made eating very difficult. The starvation caused by cancer were one of the main factors in his death.
Cancer is awful - but the awful thing is usually the treatment. You can have some great months before you get really sick and die short time after.
Which is why we need a cure and not just treatment.
If they weren't living in third world countries, they wouldn't be in that situation.
Lol.
Yes. He didn't lose his hair though, so I don't know what kind that would have been.
Yeah, read my first argument again. Most issues with cancer, such as hairloss, vomiting, lose of appetites and all that are caused by chemo, not cancer.
Yes, but the effects of starvation are more widespread in populations. Ending it would also end violence and fighting over the few food resources, saving more lives as well.
If I had to choose if I wanted to die from starvation or die from cancer, I would choose cancer. Because the bad things with cancer is the CHEMO.. and if I were to die I didn't want chemo anyways.
That would result in me having a nice time before my death, instead of starvation, where I would be in much much pain and physical torture before my death.
Are you serious? I read what you wrote; I even fucking highlighted what YOU wrote. You said "hair loss, vomiting, weight loss, etc,. are caused by chemo" and I replied "they wouldn't have to go through chemo if they didn't have cancer". In other words, CHEMO; the thing you find most troubling about cancer, would not even EXIST if there was a cure. Other than that your argument consisted of an "Lol" for a response (should I have addressed that?) and you telling me to re-read your first argument... which I did and it was basically a repeat of what you've already been saying.
Which there isn't. This makes no sense, because I just said what I would rather die from. I chose cancer, because then I wouldn't have to go through chemo. See?
You make no sense.. you blow of bullshit I already know.
What I said was simply a statement of how I RATHER WANTED TO DIE.
Which there isn't. This makes no sense, because I just said what I would rather die from. I chose cancer, because then I wouldn't have to go through chemo. See?
Of course there isn't a cure, but for the sake of the debate there is. I know you said you'd rather die from cancer than starvation; no need to keep repeating yourself. I also understand you'd want to AVOID chemo; once again, you don't need to repeat yourself. I'm getting a little tired of addressing the same thing over and over again. Chemo or no chemo, I think cancer is the bigger problem.
You make no sense.. you blow of bullshit I already know
No, everything I say just seems to go over your head.
The first two lines - where I talked about how many people die from each thing, that's actually the only part of my comment regarding the topic of the debate.
The rest is what I would rather die off, and then you went and talked about a man who died from the starvation the cancer caused him. Then I tried to point out to you, that that man entered chemo - and if I were to die from cancer, I would not enter chemo. See?
I was really confused because I'd just explained why I like to die from cancer rather than starvation, and then you brought up cures and stuff like that.
WHATEVER... it got really confusing so let's just .. move on.
I myself would pick starvation. Mainly for economic reasons, actually. Starvation affects communities instead of individuals like cancer. If you end starvation, these communities can start being more economically productive which could end a lot more problems such as poverty or lack of rights. So ending starvation can be good for a lot of people who aren't even starving. Not to mention the money put into helping the starving and poor can be redirected to cancer research. That is just me though.
Well, all I do is put like 30 spaces before the last word of my argument, and obviously only one space appears when you post, but it gets around the limit.
The reason poor people have so many children is because some will likely die during childhood. If just one lives, they can go on and help the family by working themselves.
The parents have no skills because lack of education. It's not that they decided to be lazy and not go to school, either they didn't have a school where they lived or they had to spend time working instead to survive.
Another reason they have no skills is because they have to do what is in demand. If farming coffee or rice to export to other countries is the only thing your country's economy is based on, you go do that whether you want to or not. It's not the parents' fault that they were born in the location where they were born.
I really don't see a why we should support dead end cultures, they are future less. Without us they would be long gone, feeding them from time to time does more damage than good. It's expensive and quite useless.
I know many reach groups that would utilize those money and probably have valuable outcomes rather than giving them to mercenaries and parasitic pseudo-charities, that may or may not let someone live few weeks longer.
Hungry child is a fail of person who willingly brings a child to hunger. It's their fail, they know that children is most likely going to die, idiots like that should not procreate.
Wow. This is wrong and cruel on so many levels. If they have no future, it's because they can't develop their own economy and instead depend on exportation. If you can make them self-reliant, they can begin to develop. When countries collapse, the people don't disappear. They just go into a worse position than before. Helping them would do a tremendous amount of good. The people who are starving did not choose where to be born or their own situation. There are many social factors which play a part. Maybe instead of blaming them we should fix those parasitic pseudo-charities.
People don't willingly bring their children into hunger. They do their best in an economy which is one-sided and doesn't pay much. Besides, if people in third world countries ceased to procreate, that wouldn't necessarily be good either.
People don't willingly bring their children into hunger. They do their best in an economy which is one-sided and doesn't pay much. Besides, if people in third world countries ceased to procreate, that wouldn't necessarily be good either.
If your income is $2 a day and you need $3 a day to survive, how can you miss the little thing that if you cannot feed yourself you most likely can't feed others...
It's a personal fail. I'm not going to help them with anything. It may sound cruel but it would be throwing money away. I'll rather give to to something that can success.
If you make $2 a day and need three, having a kid who also makes $2 a day give you an extra $1. That's why they have kids. They have a lot because many won't survive to working age.
As a poor person, you couldn't change the price you get paid or the price of food. The only way to move forward is to have more sources of income. Ending up in that situation isn't a fail either. You can't help where you are born. There are social causes underlying starvation. If it was a result of laziness and stupidity, there'd be a lot more starvation in the world than there is. It's because of selfish governments, weak infrastructure, low natural resources, and a foreign-based economy. Some of the hardest-working, most honest people I've ever known have been dirt-poor immigrants trying to support their family. Some of the most selfish and idiotic people I've ever known have (surprise) lived right here in the US. They can afford to be selfish and idiotic because they have a stronger government and infrastructure, more natural resources, and a more domestic economy. It has nothing to do with work ethic.
In the question I posted, you are able to just flick a switch and end starvation. By de facto, you end these social problems as well. That would be better for everybody and not just be a waste of money. Human life is valuable and not just about numbers. That's why I pick starvation over cancer, it affects more people in more ways.
I think that intentional making of other poor people who most likely will never be 15... just because you could make a little of money from them seems to me as selfish and cruel.
Regardless, it doesn't mean they deserve to starve or that it's their fault for being there or that we shouldn't care what happens to them. And a lot of pregnancies happen by accident since they don't have the means or education to obtain protection in many cases.
That's a bit fatalistic. It's not as simple as just farming more. Besides, if farmers make enough to feed everybody, they will make less money. That is supply and demand. Farmers are businessmen. Sure, cancer has a lot more hurdles to overcome, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it would help the most people to solve it first.
Oh, I'm not implying it would be immediate. I merely state it's far more possible than curing cancer at this moment in time. If that changes, then so will my answer.
Cancer is horrible and I would like to see it defeated. It's a painful and very slow process. Starvation is quicker. There may be more people in starvation but cancer is a lot more painful.
Starvation can be cured, cancer can not. So I would put an end to all cancer if I had to choose...which I don't because I will never be in a position like this.
Cancer is a genetic type of thing and sadly it can last forever as it runs in the family. It can't be ended but can only be supported through advanced medical technology. On the other hand, starvation can be ended if you end poverty. So, ending all of cancer is more worth it compared to starvation.
If I had the choice and the capability to either rid the world of cancer or starvation, then I would choose Cancer. You see, starvation can be helped. All people have to do is donate money and even doing something as simple as giving someone a little bit of food if you see they haven't eaten. The problem with that is that only the wealthy donate, and even then only a small majority. However, cancer cannot simply be cured with donations and kindness. Which is why I would end cancer if given the choice between the two.
It's not true only the wealthy donate :) The not so wealthy are very giving too, only they cannot give in big amounts like the wealthy people can - but together they can make their small amounts to one big amount.
Thank you for clarifying, you are definitely right. I should have put that mostly wealthy people are the ones who donate. I know the not so wealthy people donate as well though, and I also know that a lot of the time people simply can't donate due to the lack of extra money.
