Instigator / Pro
6
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1997

5G is a ticking time bomb on health.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
18
Better sources
2
12
Better legibility
1
6
Better conduct
0
6

After 6 votes and with 36 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

5G is the 5th generation mobile technology, not the five GHz spectrum used in some 802.11 standards.

Ticking time bomb: "That negative health repercussions of 5G are a very substantial risk."

Substantial: Real and tangible rather than imaginary.

BOP: Both parties. Pro must demonstrate there is a substantial risk. and Con must demonstrate there is not. Failure of both results in a tie.

-->
@User_2006

damn it

-->
@MisterChris

christopher_best

-->
@User_2006

Who you gonna call?

-->
@MisterChris

What do ghostbusters have to do with 5G?

There is so much out there that is claimed to cause cancer [and little citation] that we'd best not leave the house. Except that we allow so much into the house from outside the house that inside the house is just as carcinogenic as outside the house. Maybe we should just stand in the doorway and hope for the best when the earthquake hits. It's probably a cancer, too.

Meanwhile, Michael Flynn is not only probably guilty, but is carcinogenic, too. Not that anyone would know it. No supporting data.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

I'm having fun with this so far. I like the 5G topics

-->
@CaptainSceptic

It is helpful to define some terms beforehand for the ease of judging. If you're going to use particularly technical terms definitions will be helpful, but discussing the electromagnetic spectrum and the like is inherent in the topic. Really, you can just use your best judgement.

-->
@Barney

谢谢 Ragnar

-->
@CaptainSceptic

You certainly don't need to explain that humans depend on oxygen, or that there is such a thing as an electromagnetic spectrum. That said, when trying to show harm coming from one of those, some details to that harm will be important. On a debate about immediately converting the rain forests into TP, I might cite how much of the oxygen production on the planet comes from it (not the method trees use to do such); whereas my opponent would likely counter with how little oxygen we actually need (perhaps even using CPR to illustrate his or her point).

Clearly labeling parts of your argument can be very helpful. If you start explaining how the earth formed, I can skip ahead to something I don't need the background on, where my energy will be better spent.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

Question for you guys. There are some very important scientific elements in my argument. Is it my obligation to explain those concepts, or can I just refer to them as a common understanding? Things like the electromagnetic spectrum, phase arrays, power measurements (watts, joules, calories). Do I have to provide proof of conversion equations etc?

I want to make sure that I provide enough information, without making it too assumption, or on the opposite too verbose.

Sorry for the noob question.

Nice setup.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Alright cool. Thank you and good luck

-->
@MisterChris

Done.

If you make the time for argument a week I will accept