Instigator / Pro

My view that God put Medicine in plants for every Single disease is most likely correct


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
During the veitnam war malaria was more deadly then the actual war. The communist  party set out to solve this problem.In 1969 a secret mission called project 520 was started in an attempt to find a cure for malaria.It was started by the Chinese goverment to cure the communist soldiers of the disease as they were falling ill in the mosquito infested jungle's. tu youyou a Chinese scientist who won a noble prize for her herbal cure.Discovered that sweet wormwood can cure you of maleria in 24 to 48 hours after consumption.  The communist soldiers when they got malaria in the veitam war would just drink a cup of magic wormwood tea and they were cured in 24 to 48 hours.While the Americans  died from maleria and there pharmaceuticals.This allowed the communist party to win many battle's in the war

Tu then had to test the treatment in humans — and tried it on herself first to make sure it was safe. After enduring no side effects, she organized clinical trials for people with malaria, and the participants were cleared of the disease within little more than a day. Tu's discovery remains the fastest acting antimalarial, and artemisinin-based combination therapies are recommended by the World Health Organization as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria.
She won a noble prize for discovering this herbal cure and her part in the veitnam war.

Patients with drug-resistant malaria cured by plant therapy. When the
standard malaria medications failed to help 18 critically ill patients,
the attending physician in a Congo clinic acted under the "compassionate
use" doctrine and prescribed a not-yet-approved malaria therapy made
only from the dried leaves of the Artemisia annua plant. In just five
days Artemisinin cured malaria in all"

After tu youyou got her noble prize for her maleria cure.She said that we should look for other cure's in plants.She said this because if sweet wormwood can cure someone of malaria in 24 to 48 hours.It is logical to assume there are other plants like it.For example the great insulin plant is know to cure diabetes's.I am saying the most logical reason herbs cure people of disease in 24 to 48 hours is because god put medicine in plants for all disease.If there is a cure for one disease in plants it is logical the cure's for other disease exist in other plants.

insulin plant was introduced to India in recent times. The plant has been regarded as being a magical, natural cure for diabetes. Even though the herb is primarily used for curing diabetes, it is also beneficial in the treatment of kidney stones, blood pressure [1] and various other ailments.

I once read an article about 4 or 5 years ago on how people in India used sweetflag to cure people of stuttering.They even gave it to infant babies because they believed it would make them more talkative.I also read a study on how tumeric can reverse brain damage done by schizophrenic medication.My instinctive reaction was i can repair every part of my brain with herbs. I watched a youtube video on how kiwi fruits repaired 5 gene's when consumed and when 4 other berries were added to it. It repaired 25 gene's.My instinctive reaction to it was that it is possible to repair ever mutation in you genetic code. The question is why would i come to such conclusions from reading this information.The answer is simple if x is this way then y must be that way to.

There is believed to be   more then 390,800 thousands plants in the world.There has only been 70 thousand record disease in all of human history.So the numbers add up.Plus the rate of germ to disease is very small.With trillions of germs only 30 thousand disease have come to existence.  Which means that out of trillions of germs barley even one of them is able to cause a disease.There have only been around 30 thousand disease according to the world health organization.

There are an estimated 30,000 human diseases known to medicine. Sources of information: ?According to the World Health Organization, there are still no effective treatments available for around three quarters of the 30,000 diseases known today worldwide.?

I am a very BoP based debater, so I will do so.

Pro: Crossed:
  • God exists
  • God put medicine in plants
  • Those medicines can cure EVERY SINGLE DISEASE that we have
Con: Intelligence_06: Pro's proof is insufficient

BoP: On Pro

Rebuttal: God exists?

Pro has not addressed this point, so I can firmly say that, up till now, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP.

According to Pro, God put a cure for every single disease in plants. Now, these points need to be addressed:
  1. How did God put medicine in plants?
  2. What is the territory of "God put it in" VS "It grew itself"? Due to that if God didn't put it in and it grew a cure itself, Pro is still wrong.
  3. What is the proof that God put medicine in plants?
Pro put zero evidence that God put it in. Pro has failed to prove that God exists, let alone PUT medicine in plants. Now, what is "Put"?

Put: to place in a specified position or relationship
(My opponent failed to define "put" anywhere in his argument, so I can define them to crazy extents. However, to merit, I shall recite the most relevant one.)
What does this mean? God, which isn't proven existent, manually put medicine in plants. Pro needs to prove that God went out of its way to change the chemical composition of the plant so it can provide humans a cure for diseases.

Rebuttal: Incorrect speculation

By that 390,800 plants in the world and only 70,000 diseases, thus all plants should cure at least one disease. That, however, is logically fallacious. This is the same as me saying because there are 8,700,000 species in the world, Earth hosts life and there are 8 planets, so each planet should be home to at least one million organisms. however, it does not work that way. I have proven that, by the same logical structure, the argument itself is structured so that it will not make a sound argument. 

Again, if most diseases aren't cured, then the whole argument is defeated: How do you prove that there are plants for that? Oh, you can't. Too bad. You have one job, my opponent.

Conclusion: My opponent's proof is unsound

  • My opponent has not proved that God exists and went out of his way to put medicine inside plants.
  • My opponent has not proved that there is evidence that plants host a cure for all diseases. Merely false speculations with 3 examples are not enough. We need sound evidence.
  • Overall, my opponent's proof is not reliable. Vote Con, guys.

Round 2
Con has taken the time to set up some definition.Con says that i have to prove that god exist before i start making claims that he does something.Let say there is medicine in plants for all disease.Would that not be proof of gods existence.Would it not take a being of supreme power to put a cure for every disease in a plant. So proving there is a cure for every disease would prove a higher power. Proving one proves the other. It takes intelligence to make a cure for the disease.For example sweet wormwood.You would have to create a compound which kills the disease without harming the good stuff.You would have to have knowledge of good and evil.Something only an intelligent being can have.For example olive oil attacks cancer cells but not good cells.It appears that olive oil has knowledge of good and evil.Something only an intelligent mind can possess.So how does a inanimate object kill the bad cells but not the good cells.If it is not intelligent it should attack both and not concern itself with only attacking the cells which harm humans. Simple put  an intelligent being foresaw that it would be bad if olive oil attack health cells So it programmed it to only attack bad cancer cells.
My original hypothesis still stands.Sweet wormwood tea was used to to cure people of malaria in 24 to 48 hours during the veitnam war.I said that is only logical to assume that there are other plants that do the same thing but with other disease.This assumption turned out to be right. For example medical marijuana is infamous for cureing epilepsy in small children.There are hundreds of video's online of parents giving there child marijuana and it cure there kids of epilepsy.There are thousand of doctor's that says medical marijuana cure's epilepsy in small children.This is one of the main reason given when they try to legalize it.Answer me this why was it 100 percent correct to assume there are other plants like sweet wormwood can cure disease.

A testimony of someone saying weed cured them of epilepsy

video of child with epilepsy cured by weed.

Marijuana stops child's severe seizures

Last bit
Con said something about 8 million animals on 8 planets.This has nothing to do with what i said.Last debate someone said there are trillions of germs thus trillions of disease.I logically responded by saying there are trillions of germs but only 70k worth of disease have come from that.So trillions of germs only creates 1 or 2 disease.For every couple trillion germs only one of the germs is likely to create a disease.He of course ignore what i said and kept saying trillion germ = trillions of disease as if i wrote nothing.But that is beside''s the point.The rate of germ to disease is really low.With trillions of germs only 70k worth of disease have popped up.SO the rate of germ to disease is for every couple trillion disease barley one if capable of causing a disease.Con had some weird definition with the word put. He is trying to legalize the argument i think.My bop is clear god put medicine in plants for all disease.I do not have to prove god exist.Proving that there is a cure for disease in plats in itself would prove gods existence.Proving one proves the other.What i mean by put is he put medicine in plants so if you eat it.The medicine would heal parts of your body.For example broccoli helps detox poisons. God put compounds in broccoli to heal us when we eat it
Unfortunately, my opponent's argument is indeed still full of holes and thus cannot sufficiently refute my case.

So my opponent has two claims.

  1. God exists
  2. There is a medicine for every disease in plants
You have to intrinsically justify each claim to make the most authenticity out of them. Even if you can't, you have to use one true claim to justify that that claim is true.

Right now, Con used an insufficiently proved claim 2(There are unexpected plant sources for every disease, so there must be one for all!) to prove claim 1. However, using an insufficiently proved or wrong claim to prove a claim does not make the latter correct. Let's say that both of these claims are correct: Pro has not demonstrated the correct way to prove either of them correctly.

What exactly is he doing wrong here? He merely has 4 examples of plants healing peoples' diseases, then concludes "There is medicine in plants for all diseases". That would be equivalent to seeing a double-yolked egg and then conclude "Every egg with 1 yolk is abnormal!" 

I saw that my opponent used insufficient logic to prove claim 2, and there is nowhere to be found the proof of claim 1. It is as if "Because girls use metal straws, thus the residency of New Orleans increases". Even if there is supposed logic within, I don't see it, nope nopity nope.

I absolutely do not oppose to that weed treats diseases. However, using it to prove that "every disease has a cure in plants", let alone "God put them in there", is too much of a push. Using the majority of the text to prove that weed can cure epilepsy still does not prove that ALL diseases have a cure.

Remember, there are 3/4 amount of diseases that are not treatable yet. What are the plants for that? 

Pro's proof is still insufficient as he had given but four examples of a plant treating diseases, and infers that there are correspondents for all.

Pro also states, "There are trillions of germs but only so many diseases, thus the number of species and the number of planets correlates not!" However, this argument itself is self-refuting as it would deem the proof that "There are 300,000 plants and 70,000 diseases, thus there is one for every one of them!" false due to the number of species having nothing to do with the overall medical function. Pro made this proof but has no other proof, thus Pro failed to prove his BoP. Vote Con.
Round 3
Let say i claim that wearing a silver ring can help with arthritis. What if i claimed that a blue rock rubbing  against my back can heal it of back pain.This of course is magic.Let say i claim that wearing a crystal necklace can keep me from getting cancer.This is magic.But lets change this for a second.Let say instead of a crystal healing me of back pain. let's say a leaf can heal my back pain.Why is a rock magic but not a leaf.So CNN claiming that a marijuana leaf stopping a child from having several seizures each week is magic.Since it is magically healing you. It is magic and i can tell you right now that marijuana has for a fact cured children of epilepsy.It has for a fact help people with back pain. Now i hear you saying it is the cbd oil that cured them of epilepsy and i will respond it is the blue crystal wireless signals that cured his back pain.Is it not magic still eve when you tell me the mechanism on how it works.Why is it magic when a rock heals you of cancer.But not magic when a leaf heals you of cancer.

Revelation 22:2

in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Ezekiel 47:12
By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.”

Con seems to want me to list thousands of plants.I could keep listing like making elder berry syrup to cure a cough.I could list the great insulin plant which is used to cure people of diabete's.when i say cure i mean cure.The plant is said to fix your insulin levels so you do not need insulin shot anymore.I could list the berry that was discovered in Australia which cure's cancer in 48 hours.Or i could just say there is 28 thousand plants screened for medical properties and say this is a trait almost all plants have.SO it is ok to assume almost all plants have medicine because this trait because it is a trait almost all plants have

Scientists Find an Australian Berry That Can Cure Cancer in 48 Hours

Cure Dengue Fever Naturally With Herbal
Home Remedies :

Scientists have been surprised by the rapid cancer-fighting properties of a berry found only in Far North Queensland.
An eight-year study led by Dr Glen Boyle, from the QIMR Berghofer medical research institute in Brisbane, found a compound in the berry could kill head and neck tumours as well as melanomas.

Cures for Hiv Begins with A Natural Hiv Cure Which is an Herbal Cure for Hiv

If i have a maple tree an oak tree and a tomato plants.These three plants have leave's.It is logical for me to assume that 90 percent of the 400 thousand other plants have leave's because leave's is a trait that almost all plants possess.Elder berry wormwood sage have medical properties.It is ok for me to assume that 90 percent of the other 400 thousand plants have medical properties because medical properties is a trait almost all plants have.A chicken egg has a yolk.It is ok for me to assume that an ostrich egg has a yolk because that is a trait almost all eggs have.It is not ok for me to assume it has a double yolk because that is not a trait almost all eggs have.Medical properties are a trait almost all plants have. 28 thousand plus plants have been screened for medical properties.I should not have to list all 28 thousand example's.I only need a few to show the trend.80 percent of the world use's herbal medicine .I only need 4 to example's to see this is a trend almost all plants have.

Remember, there are 3/4 amount of diseases that are not treatable yet. What are the plants for that? 

That is for pharmaceuticals.If you look at the weed video.The baby's girls type of epilepsy called Dravet Syndrome was not treatable with pharmaceuticals.But they found that leave's from weed can cure the disease.It was a disease that was thought to be untreatable.But was found to be treatable with a plant.It was  not treatable with modern medicine.But was treatable with herbs. I have already listed several case's of that in this rebuttal.I only need to list a few to know this is a trend for most plants.Safffron flowers have as effective prozac at treating depression.But no side effects.So saffron flowers are better then prozac.

My opponent has given only a few examples here, but again, there are thousands of diseases that have no cure. What made you say that there is a plant for every one of them, despite only listing a few examples of plants curing diseases?

My opponent has gathered biblical evidence
Unless he proved that the Bible is a reliable source, which he didn't, and there is counterevidence, Pro needs to prove that the Bible is about the real world instead of some myths. He didn't, which makes the Bible an unreliable source, thus negating his argument from being true.

My opponent has given more examples about plants curing diseases
However, he did not prove that this correlates to that all plants have a cure for some kind of disease. There is no example of so, and I see no authentic evidence saying "We found that chemicals in plants that have the potential to cure every single disease".

SO it is ok to assume almost all plants have medicine because this trait because it is a trait almost all plants have
He has not listed evidence saying out of all diseases, 28,000 can cure diseases. Also, this argument is self-refuting: If there are 70,000 diseases and 28,000 medical plants, then even if all plants are useful, they can't cure all diseases. Even then, you can't assure that each medical plant can cure, on average, two or more diseases. So far there is no proof for so.

f i have a maple tree an oak tree and a tomato plants.These three plants have leave's.It is logical for me to assume that 90 percent of the 400 thousand other plants have leave's because leave's is a trait that almost all plants possess.Elder berry wormwood sage have medical properties.It is ok for me to assume that 90 percent of the other 400 thousand plants have medical properties because medical properties is a trait almost all plants have.
This is as absurd as saying because both I and Jeff Bezos are bald, thus I will be rich in the future, undoubtedly. Even if it is right that is no sufficient proof out there. If Pro failed to justify his belief using the right logic, he still loses.

That is for pharmaceuticals.If you look at the weed video.The baby's girls type of epilepsy called Dravet Syndrome was not treatable with pharmaceuticals.But they found that leave's from weed can cure the disease.It was a disease that was thought to be untreatable.
My opponent used one example to refute one that would take hundreds of thousands of examples. That is not possible. If I can cure disease with this plant it doesn't mean I can cure others with others. It is rather needed to try all plants, rule out what diseases can be treated with which, and unless all diseases are crossed out, it is thus not verified to be correct. Pro needs not only to have faith but proof to prove:

  • God exists and the Bible is reliable
  • God put them in Physically
  • There is at least one plant to cure every disease
These, he did not sufficiently prove, so don't vote Pro. Vote Con!