James Earhart Taking sides 2 Are We Winning the War on Cancer? 1.

A major thesis of the yes side is that with the major advances in medicine over the last h ndred years! we can eliminate cancer as a major health "ro#lem in the $% if we " t in the effort. 2. The no side states that the death rates from cancer since 1&1' have hardly declined at all! and that we are still light(years away from eliminating cancer. '. The yes side claims to know what it will take to win the war on cancer. )t also states that we can win the war this cent ry! if we do the right things. These are said to #e facts. *. The no side says that we still do not know the act al mechanisms that ca se cancer. Also! adj sted for "o" lation! cancer death rates have gone down only five "ercent since 1&+,. +. According to the yes side! the American Cancer %ociety needs more f nding and the $% needs to coordinate with other co ntries to eliminate to#acco se. -. According to the no side! cancer is over(treated and a large amo nt of data that emerges a#o t cancer is seless or misleading. .. The yes side claims that its thesis is a fact. )t may #e s ""orted #y some evidence! # t facts are concrete and o#serva#le. /ost lations a#o t how things we don0t f lly nderstand will "lay o t over the ne1t h ndred years sho ld never #e "resented as fact. 2. The no side im"lies that the 31,+ #illion dollars the $% government has s"ent on the war on cancer gave not #ro ght m ch "rogress! # t yo can0t really know where we wo ld #e witho t it. &. The yes side is sing an emotional arg ment. The "a"er is very im"assioned and #asically claims to #e the way! the tr th! and the light that will lead s to the defeat of cancer. 4e says that "eo"le are dying from cancer not #eca se we don0t know how to detect and #eat it! # t #eca se we ref se to ens re that all "eo"le of all nations have access to treatment. The "ro#lem

with that statement is that we act ally can0t treat some cancers very well! it isn0t j st a matter of health ins rance. )n the a thors tirade against to#acco! he says that at c rrent rates! -+, million "eo"le alive today! half of whom are children! will event ally die. Everyone will event ally die! and since children make " a small "art of cancer "atients! ) don0t see e1actly what it has to do with the war on cancer. 1,. The no side ses a fact al arg ment. The things he writes are #acked #y data that he "resents in the "a"er. 5ne of his main arg ments! that cancer death rates have gone down little since 1&+,! is #acked #y act al research data. )n his arg ment for another main "oint! that we still don0t know e1actly what ca ses cancer! he "resents clearly what we do know and why it isn0t as m ch as some "eo"le claim. 11. ) feel that the no side is more correct. The a thor ses act al data to #ack " what he says! and clearly e1"lains how he came to his concl sions. The yes side seemed like a general trying to rile " the troo"s #efore a #attle! or a "olitician on the cam"aign trail. 12. The no side is #y far more em"irical in it0s "resentation. 4e sticks to the to"ic and give data to #ack " what he says. The yes side doesn0t even #other to give any data on cancer one way or another! all the data given is a#o t to#acco se. 1'. The a thor for the yes side seems very im"assioned. As the "resident of the American cancer society! he sho ld #e! # t he sho ldn0t let it o#sc re the fact that the fight against cancer is a medical one! and doesn0t change de"ending on how e1cited yo are. )t seems like this "a"er is j st a vehicle for him to com"lain a#o t to#acco and raise f nds for his society.