5g internet is a death grid

The resolutionThe resolution is that 5g internet is a death grid.
Pro goes to great lengths to show and explain how deadly 5g internet is due to the radio patterns.
Con points out that there doesn’t seem to have been a deadly outbreak in NYC where it has already been set up.
Con also points out the lack of cited evidence, reliance on YouTube videos rather than evidential sources, and the lack of any demonstrable fatalities.
Con argues that while there is the possibility, even the scientific data presented is not clear cut.
Pros remaining arguments are primarily just rehashes of the original points, or dismissing cons arguments and concerns.
There is very little, if any actually argument or evidence presented by pro: it mainly amounts to a number of unsubstantiated claims and accusations that are not tied together with justification, science or a cohesive argument.
Con on the other hand throws a large amount of doubt on this claim
Arguments to con.
Sources: pro relies heavily on YouTube videos, and blog posts - and provides no conclusive or concrete first hand data to the mix. The two groups “Ehsense” appears to be a largely advocacy organization rather than scientific, as does “ehtrust” which also appears to be run by a potentially discredited scientist according to Wikipedia’s. This grossly eroded pros warrant as a result.
Cons source however - is a citation of objective reality - effectively how can it be a death grid if it appears it’s already running without issue - using proof that it is actually installed without any apparent issues to demonstrate the resolution is false.
This clearly shows pros sources harm his point, and cons sources greatly establish his.
Sources to con.

Kiss my goddamn ass.

The resolutionThe resolution is that 5g internet is a death grid.

Pro goes to great lengths to show and explain how deadly 5g internet is due to the radio patterns.

Con points out that there doesn’t seem to have been a deadly outbreak in NYC where it has already been set up.

Con also points out the lack of cited evidence, reliance on YouTube videos rather than evidential sources, and the lack of any demonstrable fatalities.

Con argues that while there is the possibility, even the scientific data presented is not clear cut.

Pros remaining arguments are primarily just rehashes of the original points, or dismissing cons arguments and concerns.

There is very little, if any actually argument or evidence presented by pro: it mainly amounts to a number of unsubstantiated claims and accusations that are not tied together with justification, science or a cohesive argument.

Con on the other hand throws a large amount of doubt on this claim

Arguments to con.

Sources: pro relies heavily on YouTube videos, and blog posts - and provides no conclusive or concrete first hand data to the mix. The two groups “Ehsense” appears to be a largely advocacy organization rather than scientific, as does “ehtrust” which also appears to be run by a potentially discredited scientist according to Wikipedia’s. This grossly eroded pros warrant as a result.

Cons source however - is a citation of objective reality - effectively how can it be a death grid if it appears it’s already running without issue - using proof that it is actually installed without any apparent issues to demonstrate the resolution is false.

This clearly shows pros sources harm his point, and cons sources greatly establish his.

Sources to con.

Pro argues that 5G internet causes skin diseases, cancers and has “terrible effects” on the eyes. Pro admitted that he has no clue why 5G internet is doing this “5g screws with this in some terribly since way that i don't understand”. So, his argument basically boils down to “I don’t know why or how but 5G will harm you”. Conceding that one does not know what one is talking about severely harms the strength of one’s arguments, although that alone is not sufficient to refute them. Furthermore, he presented a document that was signed by more than 180 scientists and doctors which supports his case well, however he simply stated that it was a paper from “180 scientists” which is slightly deceptive by making the document sound more credible than it actually is.
Con refutes Pro’s case by pointing to NYC where 5G has been partly implemented but no harm has been reported. Pro counters by arguing that he is talking about 5G, rather than 4g,3g,2g,1g, etc. which suggests that he has misunderstood Con’s argument as he implied that 5G has been implemented in parts of NYC which he supported with a source which clearly supports this assertion: “5G Home Internet Is Now Live in New York City”. Due to this misunderstanding and no new arguments by Pro, Con extended his arguments.
Con’s argument is basically: If A then B, not B, thus not A. Which is perfectly valid and convincing. In his final round, Pro argued that the New Yorkers are probably feeling the side-effects of 5G but simply not linking those to 5G and that it may be due to the short time that it has been present in NYC. Con pointed out that we would still expect elevated doctor visists, etc and in the end this was enough for me to believe that Pro has not fulfilled his BoP. I think Con could have done better by providing some sources that found no statistically significant harm due to 5G but since Pro was unable to explain why 5G is harmful and instead relied on assertions backed up by sources without formulating arguments, arguments go to Con.

Con pointed out flaws in Pro’s sources (e.g. that his firefighter argument relied on an article by someone who is well known to make ludicrous claims such as that Nasa conceded that they never went to the moon) which thereby completely obliterated the credibility of the firefighter argument. Furthermore, the document signed by “180 scientists” was actually signed by 180 scientists and doctors (I went through the list of signees and many of them are MDs, retired and some even from completely unrelated fields such as theology). Thus, Pro’s sources are low in credibility, whereas Con’s sources have not been criticised by Pro and seem to support his case well. Additionally, Pro’s misunderstanding of one of the sources led to round 2 being wasted (the title of the source clearly states 5G, Pro’s reference to 4G, 3G, etc. are red-herrings. Thus sources clearly go to Con due to the quality of sources, the honesty in presenting these and as Con seems to have understood them, whereas Pro conceded that he is basically regurgitating his sources due to him not understanding them.

No serious conduct issues as the false presentation of one of Pro’s sources was quite possibly a mistake and thus penalised by awarding sources already, ergo even.

Lots of S&G errors from Pro but they did not seriously impede the legibility of the debate, thus even.