prescription medication is poison

Pro forfeits one round, and offers a huge wall of text with a massive gish Gallup of claims that cannot all be addressed by con no matter how good he was.
As a result: Conduct to con.
The wall of text approach from pro is so absurd and so antithetical to debate, its hard for me to really render a cohesive verdict on every point he makes.
My interpretation of the resolution and how a reasonable person would view it, is that prescription medication is not just potentially harmful (which is trivial), but the harm is a primary usage and characteristic.
Pro focuses on side effects, that medication can kill, that the word itself has connotations of poison - but at no point attempts to present any argument that the primary characteristic and usage of medication is to cause harm.
Con nails pro to the wall by pointing out the cherry picking pro does by fixating only on specific cases, by pointing out that side effects do not always occur, and they simply may.
He argues that definition of the old word upon which pharmaceutical is based does not make it poison, nor does the companies being corrupt, and a few others. Con goes through the primary claims very well, and with far more patience then I would have expected.
Pros response was another wall of text. So badly formatted it was hard to determine where his additional claims start and rebuttals begin.
Pro offers little or no argument about the rarity of side effects, that drugs are not the top 4 causes of death (other than to clairfy), that pharma corruption is just as bad as pharm being poison - which may be true, but is irrelevant to the resolution. And to reiterate his issue with side effects.
Cons final argument round points this all out, that pros position is a collection of anecdotes, that being potentially harmful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s poison, and reiterating his case about side effects.
As a result, despite the near indecipherable mess that was pros argument - con clearly casts sufficient doubt on the resolution, and clearly refuted the bulk of claims.
Arguments to con.
All other points tied.

Pro forfeits one round, and offers a huge wall of text with a massive gish Gallup of claims that cannot all be addressed by con no matter how good he was.

As a result: Conduct to con.

The wall of text approach from pro is so absurd and so antithetical to debate, its hard for me to really render a cohesive verdict on every point he makes.

My interpretation of the resolution and how a reasonable person would view it, is that prescription medication is not just potentially harmful (which is trivial), but the harm is a primary usage and characteristic.

Pro focuses on side effects, that medication can kill, that the word itself has connotations of poison - but at no point attempts to present any argument that the primary characteristic and usage of medication is to cause harm.

Con nails pro to the wall by pointing out the cherry picking pro does by fixating only on specific cases, by pointing out that side effects do not always occur, and they simply may.

He argues that definition of the old word upon which pharmaceutical is based does not make it poison, nor does the companies being corrupt, and a few others. Con goes through the primary claims very well, and with far more patience then I would have expected.

Pros response was another wall of text. So badly formatted it was hard to determine where his additional claims start and rebuttals begin.

Pro offers little or no argument about the rarity of side effects, that drugs are not the top 4 causes of death (other than to clairfy), that pharma corruption is just as bad as pharm being poison - which may be true, but is irrelevant to the resolution. And to reiterate his issue with side effects.

Cons final argument round points this all out, that pros position is a collection of anecdotes, that being potentially harmful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s poison, and reiterating his case about side effects.

As a result, despite the near indecipherable mess that was pros argument - con clearly casts sufficient doubt on the resolution, and clearly refuted the bulk of claims.

Arguments to con.

All other points tied.

Pro's thesis is generally accepted, verging on tautological. All pills are poison beyond some determinable dose. Pro ought to be able to lay down a few solid proofs and win the day but Pro's argument is too schizophrenic to persuade.

Pro argues:

1. Medicine is evil sorcery. (warranted only be one possible translation of ancient Greek)

2. Drugs have many side effects, over-warranted by long lists, more than 100 side effects in the first set with many repetitions and eccentric numbering. Pro's penchant for overlisting impairs this debates readability overall.

3. Perhaps 20% of ADHD children are misdiagnosed according to one study. This is Pro's most dependable sourcing but the fact is never linked to support for thesis. Pro states that 1 million children each year but that's not in the source and obviously false.

4. Pharmaceuticals (Pro desperately needs to define this term, drugs, poison, etc.) are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. This is false- perhaps Pro meant 4th leading means of suicide?

5. Over 100,000 people die from prescription drugs (over all? not a very impressive statistic. Annually? False. Total 2017 US deaths by legal and illegal drugs is 70,237.

6. Prescription drugs are more dangerous than illegal drugs. False, most injury due to prescription drugs come from unprescribed (therefore illegal) use.

7 The US Govt. puts fluoride in water to make Americans stupid and docile. Not linked to thesis. Not warranted. The US Govt does endorse fluoridation but almost all american tap water is managed locally. Fluoride in bottled water is not regulated but most bottled water originates from public sources.

8. "They" put pharmaceutical drugs in tap water. Another long list of drugs and side effects.

9. Drugs in water can cause us to stop breathing (unwarranted)

10. Drugs in water can cause paranoia, psychosis (unwarranted unless this debate is meant to serve as evidence).

Con effectively points out false data, unwarranted claims, failed links to thesis. I think Con would have been better off talking about dosing (he does a little with fluoride) and pushing BoP at Pro. Most substances are poisonous beyond some limit when ingested, most substances are quite safe below some determinable limit. Most of this debate is meaningless without essential quantification.

R2 is less fathomable. Quotes from R1 are not well delineated from other text. Pro doubles down on false mortality claims without evidence. The weakness of Con's reasoning and evidence is frequently reinforced:

" i eat many strange plants most of these plants would interact with the medication from tap water."

"since there no way that 25 medications would be put in the waters of America to help people it must be put in there to hurt people"

"if [fluoride] was so safe why did germany put it in the water of the jews."

"do you now how many children use i can not pay attention in class as an excuse. and the dumb parents and teacher solution is to drug them up"

Con counters point by point without really offering a counter-thesis but the debate is so disorganized I think this forgivable.

Pro forfeits R3 which is probably just as well.

Pro never assembled a cohesive argument, Con gave us plenty of good piecemeal reasons to doubt Pro's claims. Arguments to Con.

Pro sources were fair in the first round, much worse in the second. The string of anti-fluoride pseudoscience blogs was particularly odious. Con only used a couple of sources, both fine.

Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit.