Instigator / Pro
Points: 13

5g internet is a death grid

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
Points: 28
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
this debate is to get awareness out about  the new internet that is going to require them to put 5g death towers every 200 feet. these towers are going to slow kill us and screw are genetic structure completely up.all in the name of faster internet speeds.



i will first start with its effects on the human.



effects on the skin

Dr. Ben-Ishai of Hebrew University, Israel explains how the knew 5g internet will have terrible effects on the skin. are skin has these sweat ducts that are tiny little holes that allow are skin to breath. 5g screws with this in some terribly since way that i don't understand and because of that will lead to many skin diseases and cancers.

here what Dr Ben says about it straight from the article

Effects on the Skin
The biggest concern is how these new wavelengths will affect the skin. The human body has between two million to four million sweat ducts. Dr. Ben-Ishai of Hebrew University, Israel explains that our sweat ducts act like “an array of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths,” meaning that we become more conductive. A recent New York study which experimented with 60GHz waves stated that “the analyses of penetration depth show that more than 90% of the transmitted power is absorbed in the epidermis and dermis layer.
The effects of MMWs as studied by Dr. Yael Stein of Hebrew University is said to also cause humans physical pain as our nociceptors flare up in recognition of the wave as a damaging stimuli. So we’re looking at possibilities of many skin diseases and cancer as well as physical pain to our skin.


effects on the eyes

5g internet has some terrible effects on the eyes the internet radio waves at 60gh which is 5g level has been shown to penetrate the surface of the eye and cause cause thermal injuries.


also a Chinese study was done were they found that microwave radiation after 8 hours damaged lens epithelial cells of rabbits. microwave radiation is what 5g puts out.

5g technology has been in development for a long time and thy have used 5g level radio waves as military weapons for a long time.


alright to save time


it effects how fast the cells in our body grow



it bad for the heart its very bad


it makes are immune system really weak


and it does this to the brain
  • increased blood brain barrier permeability
  • melatonin reduction
  • disruption to brain glucose metabolism

  • effects how are body is able to resist bacteria.




    in the edge of wonders 5g expose video first part it talks about how it basically talks about how 240 scientist and doctors with published research from 41 nations sent an appeal to the united nations to Holt production of 5g. nothing came from that and they talk about how 5g screws your genetic structure and then they joke about growing another head and they talk about the advance surveillance capability it will have


    lisa haven made a video talks about 5g she says it damages your chromosomes and stuff

    the 240 doctors and scientist publish research from 41 nations can be found at video time 4 minutes and 7 seconds


    5g also causes

    learning and memory defects
    genetic damages
    cellular stress
    neurological disorders
    etc



    martin pall a the leading emf expert said at Washington state universe said
    emf radiation. did a speech at the national health association about the dangers of 5g were he says emf area threat to our survival


    2017 sep 13 another 180 scientist from 31 country warns of how freaking dangerous 5g is


    it is illegal to put up  anything that affects any of the organs. but because 5g effects the skin they had to reclassify the skin as an outer layer instead of an organ

    got this from one of lissa havens videos

    Published:
    Burden of Proof:
    Pro is the one making a profound claim, to which he needs to support with profound evidence (not YouTube opinions, and not the same conspiracy site repeatedly). I shall show why any evidence he does present is insufficient to prove his case.
     

    0. NYC:
    Numbered prior to refuting pro's case, as it is my foundational counter case.
     
    That NYC (or sections thereof) is not a post-apocalyptic wasteland, disproves the death-grid assertion.
     

    1. Effects on the Skin:
    No fatalities.
     
    While they may be reviewing possibilities, they have yet to connect even one case of skin cancer to internet exposure.

     
    2. Effects on the Eyes:
    5th generation internet is not microwave ovens. Yes, experiments with humans in microwave ovens are fatal, but the lack of New Yorkers exploding has already proved there to be no valid comparison.

     
    3. Effects on the Brain:
    All that has been offered here is more fear mongering assertions. The primary site claims there's various studies, but said studies most often prove to be just more of its' own articles to sell people expensive doodads which will in no way improve their lives. I'm sorry pro fell for the scam of a snake-oil salesman, but his heavily plagiarized case implies that more than anything else.
    Round 2
    Published:
    im am talking about 5g internet and its insane health risks. i am not talking about 4g 3g 2g or 1g




    2017 sep 13 another 180 scientist from 31 country warns of how freaking dangerous 5g is
    there have also been another 240 scientist and doctors with published research also talking about the risks.


    scientist even brought it to Washington dc to lawmakers.


    everything i said is true
    Published:
    Extend arguments.

    With 5G internet already in parts of New York City, and pro unable to find any of his predicted deaths (nor even injuries), his case is firmly refuted.
    Round 3
    Published:
    i am saying it would slow kill everyone the new yorkers are probably feeling the effects they just have not tied there symptoms to the internet.for example a 5g internet tower was placed next to a fire stations all of the fire men started to have migraine headaches. but luckily they were able to figure out that it was the 5g tower placed right next to them and they were able to get a bill to remove it


    if the fire men did not tie there headaches to the 5g towers would we hear of it. if they are getting sick i bet you they have not connected the dots and figured out that it is the 5g internet doing it to them. plus they  towers have not been installed for that long and the towers have been turned off for a long time to. sorry for the late uploads hideing from 5g. i don't think if the newyorkers got sick they would tie it to 5g


    news report on firefighter 5g and there testimony

    an article

    Published:
    new yorkers are probably feeling the effects they just have not tied there symptoms to the internet.
    As hilarious as your claim is, that they died but are carrying on their normal lives having not noticed dying yet, you have not found any evidence to suggest it. Even the claimed migraines have no news articles, no doctors visits, not even the word of a single firefighter having a headache... All you have is a video of a crazy woman at a public hearing, repeating old conspiracies theories about sperm counts.

    The article is both fictional (tank warfare, but the tank was invisible so no one else in the world knows about it), and produced by a certifiably insane author whom claims things like NASA denies we ever went to the moon. Such ramblings are evidence of an unhinged mind, not of anything within the real world.
    Added:
    --> @Ragnar
    i mostly talk about pharmakeai. but denying 5g danger is denying facts
    Instigator
    #4
    Added:
    Not the weakest conspiracy theory I've disproven. Still, two pages handled with half a page, feels nice.
    Contender
    #3
    Added:
    --> @Melcharaz
    http://themillenniumreport.com/2018/12/5g-will-use-the-same-frequencies-as-pain-inflicting-military-weapon/
    https://needtoknow.news/2018/06/will-5g-technology-bring-human-extinction/
    https://youtu.be/ljLynbr5iPc
    https://youtu.be/oq_oLG4FFXc
    Instigator
    #2
    Added:
    --> @crossed
    what do you mean?
    #1
    #4
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    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.
    #3
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    Kiss my goddamn ass.
    #2
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    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.
    #1
    Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
    Better arguments 3 points
    Better sources 2 points
    Better spelling and grammar 1 point
    Better conduct 1 point
    Reason:
    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.