The Instigator
FrodoDestroyIt
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

DDO = Illuminati

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,130 times Debate No: 88774
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

FrodoDestroyIt

Pro

i will argue ddo --> debate.org is illuminatu and the othr guy (my deer friend n oppnnt) will prove its not

1st rnd acceptance

plz try ur BESS
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I accept the debate, and hope it will be an enlightening discussion.

Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
FrodoDestroyIt

Pro

I thank my most gracious opponent for accepting my debate. Let's begin by defining what 
Illuminati is.

The Illuminati is a secret society of the 1700s founded in Germany. Illuminism, the ideology of the
Illuminati, is a type of Freemasonry, since it's modeled after Freemasonry and and designed to
infiltrate and control it.

I must emphasize that just because (with a few exceptions) nobody seriously calls themselves
Illuminati anymore, that doesn't mean the Illuminati do not exist. A rose by any other name would
smell just as sweet.

Something else to note is that the Illuminati loved mythological symbolism, especially that of
ancient Greece. The mascot of the Illuminati was the Owl of Athena, the Greek Goddess of
Wisdom, a.k.a. Athena. The Illuminati used Greek codenames to refer to cities: Munich was called
Athens, Ingolstadt was called Eleusis, Ravensberg was called Sparta, etc.(1)

The Illuminati also loved Egyptian symbolism, but you know that already. After all, Freemasonry
had been long using Egyptian symbolism, and as already pointed out, the Illuminism is a just a
peculiar type of Freemasonry. You've seen the All-Seeing Eye of Freemasonry on the dollar bill.
That was put there by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Freemason,(2) and the pyramid makes
the allusion to ancient Egyptian mythology obvious. The ancient Egyptians considered the sun to
literally be a great, deified eye.

Of course the Illuminati's symbolism won't be limited to Greek and Egyptian, but those are the two
main ones. Now let's get to the point: Debate.org is an Illuminati enterprise.

First things first. Juggle.com is the parent company of Debate.org.


Is Juggle part of the Illuminati?

That would greatly bolster my case, if not downright prove it. Let's see. Juggle is an odd name,
since the company has nothing whatsoever to do with juggling (as far as I can tell).

Could it be Illuminati wordplay?

Consider this. If Google is pronounced with a soft G, then it could be written as Joogle ... or Juggle.
Google is named after Barney Google, a character known for his googly eyes.(3) Google refers to
bulging and/or staring eyes.

EYES.

Note the text is rainbow colored. Keeping in mind the Illuminati's love for Greek symbolism, we
recall the Greek word for rainbow is iris. What is an iris a part of?

THE EYE.

Google is doubly a reference to eyes. So is Juggle! The official color of Juggle isn't rainbow, it's
purple, but purple is just red and blue mixed together. The Egyptian Sun God had two eyes: one
red, one blue.

The default avatar assigned to new DDO members is a purple circle.

Coincidence?

There are no coincidences in conspiracy land. If you said, "Duh, coincidence," then somebody
tell the shepherd to wake up the sheep.

The first thing you notice upon arriving at Juggle.com is a quote from Sun Tzu:


Sun Tzu means Great Sun.(4) The Great Sun is an EYE in Egyptian mythology! Okay, so Juggle is
the Illuminati. So what? Maybe DDO isn't complicit in the conspiracy.

Ah! But airmax1227 is the moderator of DDO, and he is a ...

Resident of Wisconsin. Where was I? Oh yes!

When I pointed my Illuminati-radar at his profile, it literally exploded. At least, to the extent that
metaphorical things can do literal stuff. His avatar is an axolotl, a creature with LIDLESS EYES:(5)


AIRMAX backwards is XAMRIA. XAM-R-IA. Samaria! Samaria means WATCH tower.(6) 1227 in
Strong's Concordance is diablepo(7), which sounds like DIABLO and means I SEE CLEARLY. His
birth year is 1983, and looking again in Strong's Concordance we find episkopeo, Greek for I
WATCH INTENTLY
.

Let's stalk-- I mean, investigate-- some other top DDO members. imabench, former DDO Vice
President. Compare his name to Mac Benach, an Illuminati password that means Blessed Son.

SUN.

imabench is basically Mac Benach with an i in the front.

EYE.

His avatar is Elsa, from Frozen. The Ice Queen.


EYES QUEEN.

lannan13, another top DDO member in cahoots with-- I mean, friends with-- airmax1227, has Ayn
Rand as his avatar. Ayn is Hebrew for EYE.


Compare lannan13 with Inanna, the Sumerian Goddess with ALL-SEEING EYES.(8)

Up next: YYW. The W is a clever disguise for two V's. YYVV. Compare to YHVH, a.k.a. Jehovah,
the "Lost Name" of the Deity of the Illuminati.

Let's check out another profile: bsh1. What does bsh1 mean? She graciously explains it to us in her
forum signature: "I'm a Bish." Abish in the Book of Mormon is first cited for her remarkable
VISION.(9) Abish backwards is Shiba. Shiba Inu is Doge. Inu. I-n-u.

EYEING YOU.

Doge sounds like Yod pronounced backwards. Yod is the Hebrew letter Y, a common abbreviation for
YHVH.(10) We've already noted the significane of YHVH to the Illuminati, so last but not least, look
at my opponent's avatar:


I mean, c'mon!

Vote Pro!

(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
(2) www.masonicdictionary.com/presidents.html
(3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Google_and_Snuffy_Smith
(4) http://www.ancientmilitary.com...
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) http://www.christiananswers.net...
(7) http://biblehub.com...
(8) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(9) https://www.lds.org...
 
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I'm so sorry Pro, but as I write this from my phone I am laying in bed with a fever (currently 100.7 F). Unfortunately, because of this I am neither physically or mentally able to do this just yet.

If Pro would be so kind to extend his R2 into the next round, I will present my own case and rebuttals in the next round. I apologize again for the inconvenience, I didn't plan to get hit with the flu last night...

... and yes, this was probably the illuminati attacking me. I promise to provide my counter-case in the next round. Sorry again.
Debate Round No. 2
FrodoDestroyIt

Pro

No problem! Arguments extended.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to start by thanking my opponent for his patience with me during my fever. I'm still not 100%, but let's do this!

In this debate, Pro has the burden to show that Debate.org is an Illuminati enterprise; that is to say, Debate.org is run by the Illuminati. My burden as Con is to show that this isn't the case, and if I can show that Pro has provided no substantial evidence then I will rightfully win this debate.

I will start by refuting Pro's main points, and then close with my own case negating the resolution.

I. The Illuminati

Pro starts off with a basic history lesson of the Bavarian Illuminati, yet fails to share the accurate history pertaining to its demise and eventual break-up. In Pro's own source it states:

Karl Theodor and his government banned all secret societies including the Illuminati. A government edict dated March 2, 1785 "seems to have been deathblow to the Illuminati in Bavaria". Weishaupt had fled and documents and internal correspondence, seized in 1786 and 1787, were subsequently published by the government in 1787. Von Zwack's home was searched and much of the group's literature was disclosed. [1]

Many believe that the final blow was delivered by the Bavarian government, but if we look closer we can see that there were incredible amounts of inner-tension amongst the key members of the Illuminati, and thus the group was destined for failure regardless. This is made evident when its history, such as the following, is revealed:

In January 1781, faced with the prospect of losing Knigge and his masonic recruits, Weishaupt finally confessed that his superiors and the supposed antiquity of the order were fictions, and the higher degrees had yet to be written. Weishaupt promised Knigge a free hand in the creation of the higher degrees, and also promised to send him his own notes.

The order had now developed profound internal divisions. The Eichstaedt command had formed an autonomous province in July 1780, and a rift was growing between Weishaupt and the Areopagus, who found him stubborn, dictatorial, and inconsistent. Knigge fitted readily into the role of peacemaker.

In an attempt to satisfy everybody, the Convent of Wilhelmsbad achieved little. They renounced the Templar origins of their ritual, while retaining the Templar titles, trappings and administrative structure.

It was not only the clumsy appeal of the Illuminati that left the federation short of members. Lodge Theodore was recently formed and did not command respect like the older lodges. Most of all, the Freemasons most likely to be attracted to the federation saw the Illuminati as an ally against the mystics and Martinists, but valued their own freedom too highly to be caught in another restrictive organisation. Even Ditfurth, the supposed representative of the Illuminati at Wilhelmsbad, had pursued his own agenda at the convent.

In reality, the creation of the Eclectic Alliance had undermined all of the subtle plans of the Illuminati to spread their own doctrine through Freemasonry.

Johann Kaspar Lavater, the Swiss poet and theologian, rebuffed Knigge. He did not believe the order's humanitarian and rationalist aims were achievable by secret means. He further believed that a society's drive for members would ultimately submerge its founding ideals.


The final straw that broke the camels back internally was the fight between the two leaders, Weishaupt and Knigge:

Weishaupt now claimed to other Illuminati that the Priest ritual was flawed because Knigge had invented it. Offended, Knigge now threatened to tell the world how much of the Illuminati ritual he had made up.

So what have we learned from reading its true history and internal conflict? We've learned that this group was nothing more than a boys' club and by the end the two biggest leaders in the movement were bickering like school-children, threatening each other to reveal the fakeness of it all. This was all found in Pro's own source too. (1)

This is the ever-expanding, all powerful organization that rules the world? No. Not only was it banned and broken up by the ruling powers at the time, but it was already splintered from the inside out, with none of the key members ever picking it back up once it was finally done for due to their own distaste for one another.

So why is the Illuminati still relevent today?

This is mostly due to the popular literature surrounding the organization that has been published since its demise. The source of this literature can be traced back to 1797 and 1798, with Augustin Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism and John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy. These books hypothesized that the Illuminati was behind the French Revolution (key word - hypothesized), and many reprints and paraphrases spawned from these books.

Then, during the 1820's-1830's there was a rise in the anti-masonic movement, which propulsed the usage of the term Illuminati into popular culture once more.

As for the modern-day groups theorized to be associated with the Illuminati, there has been no evidence that these present-day groups have amassed significant political power or influence, and rather than trying to remain secret, they promote unsubstantiated links to the Bavarian Illuminati as a means of attracting membership, which defeats the whole purpose of a 'secret society'. [1]

As it stands, there is no conclusive evidence that supports the claim that the Bavarian Illuminati still exists in some capacity. While many sister-organizations and copy cats have popped up throughout time, the original illuminati, with their original tenets, are no more.

II. Juggle is part of the Illuminati

Pro stretches ALOT trying to connect Juggle to Google, the two O's in Google to somehow mean eyes, the eyes being connected to egyptian culture, and then finally that because the eye in egyptian culture had red and blue in it - juggle is illuminati, cause new members start with purple circles which is a combo of red and blue, and again somehow representative of an eye. While this is incredibly imaginative, we should attempt to approach this from a rational standpoint, rather than trying to connect invisible dots with no conclusive evidence.

According to Juggle.com itself:

Ryan Noble and Stephanie Leffler founded Juggle.com in the spring of 2008 as a reference resource website that provided structured, comparable information on a plethora of topics. With Ryan and Stephanie at the helm, what started as a six-employee company quickly grew as opportunities were recognized. [2]

So we now have to ask, is either Ryan or Stephanie members of the Illuminati? My findings indicate they aren't.

Ryan attended Washington and Lee University which has no masonic/illuminati organizations nor is his name in any lodge books for the surrounding area. So there is no conclusive evidence linking him to the illuminati. [3]

Stephanie attended the same univeristy as Ryan, and there is no conclusive evidence linking her to the illuminati. [4]

Perhaps if they were Yale graduates with Ryan being a member of Skull and Bones, then and only then would Pro start to have a case, but that isn't reality. Neither of them have any illuminati ties, thus the founders of the site are not illuminati.

So, if the site founders aren't illuminati, can the site be?

No. Unless the site is bought out by some other organization and run by people with ties to secret organizations, Juggle.com is not, nor will be a site run by the illuminati. Pro has yet to even prove that the Illuminati still exist, much less rationally argue that they control this site.

Sun Tzu quote

Pro points out a quote on the home page of Juggle and ties it to the sun, which was another symbol for the eye in egyptian culture. In reality, it is a quote from Sun Tzu, the chinese general and philosopher. In no way does having a quote from this guy imply that they are the illuminati. Anyone can share quotes, it doesn't mean they are part of a secret society if they do so. Pro would need to prove otherwise, and connecting invisible dots with hypothesis is not, by any means, upholding that burden.

Airmax

Pro asserts that because this member has a pic of an axoloti, a creature with lidless eyes, that he's part of the illuminati. However, those animals do actually develop eyelids [5], so we can toss this theory out.

There's another part about his name spelt backwards but again, this is just a case of Pro connecting invisible dots with mere hypothesis. None of this conclusively proves that Airmax is part of the Illuminati.

Imabench

Pro asserts that this username is actually an illuminati password. In reality, bench is his last name. [6] So he, quite literally, is a bench, hence the username.

He then connects his profile pic of an ice queen to some imply that ice means eyes, another throwback to egyptian culture, and another mere hypothesis from Pro. In reality, bench is a huge fan of frozen, hence the choice of picture.

lannan13

Pro asserts that his profie pic of Ayn Rand is proof of him being part of the illuminati. Pro fails to remember that the Illuminati specifically banned Jews from joining, so if he was a member he'd never have a Jew as a profile picture.

YYW

Pro asserts that this username is code for Jehovah, but the illuminati was against religion. So, fail. YYW means Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Bsh1

This connection is the most absurd. Bsh1 is a guy, not a girl. The username is his initials.

Blade of Truth

My pic is masonic, not part of the illuminati. I am a freemason. We disliked the illuminati back then, and dislike the fact that the name is even relevent today. But no, I'm not part of the Illuminati.

Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.juggle.com...
[3] https://www.linkedin.com...
[4] https://www.linkedin.com...
[5] http://www.axolotl.org...
[6] https://www.facebook.com...
Debate Round No. 3
FrodoDestroyIt

Pro

I thank my opponent for his persistence in our debate despite his continued fever. Let me briefly sum up his arguments (numbered and underlined) in order to highlight their essence and more succinctly refute them.

ILLUMINATI

1. According to Wikipedia, the Illuminati disbanded due to internal disputes and a government edict.

Wikipedia is not telling the truth. Why? Because Wikipedia is part of the Illuminati. Look at their logo. It is an uncompleted globe puzzle with each puzzle bearing a symbol from a different language. Like the Illuminati pyramid without a capstone, the Wikipedia globe with the missing top represents the status of the Illuminati plan for global domination.



It's approaching completion, and my opponent is (unintentionally?) collaborating in our demise by helping keep the sheeple asleep. Supposedly, the "straw that broke the camel's back" and ended the Illuminati was a dispute between Weishaupt and Knigge. However, Weishaupt himself disagreed. Here are his own comments on the dispute to which my opponent refers, with my own emphasis added:

"I answer for nothing when I meet with resistance from my adepts; I have foreseen everything, and I have prepared everything. Let my whole Order go to rack and ruin; in three years I will answer to restore it, and that to a more powerful state than it is in at present -- Obstacles only stimulate my activity. I know how to turn them to my advantage; and when people think that I am undone, even then shall I rise stronger than ever. Let that person [Knigge] leave me who thinks that he can better himself elsewhere; and time will show who is mistaken. I know how to find men more docile. I can sacrifice whole provinces, the desertion of a few individuals, therefore, will not alarm me."(2)

So much for the "straw that broke the camel's back." This dispute only spurred the Illuminati on in their plans, yet my opponent cites it as proof of their destruction!


2. The Illuminati was nothing more than a "boys' club".

President George Washington called their ideology "diabolical,"(1) and according to Weishaupt:

"... it is really the fact in some states, that potent Monarchs are governed by our Order ... When you have succeeded anywhere in making yourself master of the public authority and government, you will pretend not to have the least power ..."(3)

The Illuminati secretely governed Kings. Some "boys' club"!

3. The belief in conspiracy circles that the Illuminati survives today and was behind the French Revolution is due to to unproven hypotheses of John Robison and Augustin Barruel.

But Robison proved his hypotheses with paraphrases from the Illuminati themselves, and Barruel did the same, except with word-for-word, verbatim quotes accompanied by well-known historical facts. Everyone accepts that Jacobinism was primarily responsible for the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, and President George Washington considered Jacobinism and Illuminism to be practically the same thing.(1) The Jacobins were the Illuminati, after it became officially illegal or frowned upon to call yourself a member of the "Illuminati."

"No matter what the cloak may be, provided you succeed; a cloak is however always necessary, for in secrecy our strength principally lies ... For this reason we should always conceal ourselves under the name of some other association. The inferior lodges of Freemasonry are the most convenient cloaks for our grand object, because the world is already familiarized with the idea that nothing of importance, or worthy of their attention can spring from Masonry. — The name of a literary society is also a proper mask for our first classes."(3) - Weishaupt

4. The original illuminati, with their original tenets, are no more.


I am actually proving otherwise.


DEBATE DOT ORG

1. Pro thinks the two O's in Google mean eyes.

Actually, I was saying that the name Google is an adjective which describes the eyes and means bulging or staring. It was first used in this sense for the character Barney Google, so named because of his goggly-eyes. Goggly, googly, and google all mean the same thing. They are all adjectives describing bulging eyes. Hence, the link to the Illuminati.

2. The founders of Debate.org aren't in the Illuminati.

I have to note the irony in which my opponent indulges when he cites an Illuminati website, Linkedin, to support his argument. The icon of Linkedin is the two letters i and n, which when pronounced in succession, sounds like ayin, the Hebrew word for eye.



Illuminati confirmed.


By the way, just because my opponent can't find any connections between the founders of Debate.org and the Illuminati, doesn't mean they aren't in the Illuminati. The Illuminati is a secret society, after all, and are actively trying not to be discovered.

3. Axolotls develop eyelids.

Yes, after they metamorphose, but the avatar of airmax1227 is not of a metamorphosed axolotl. Also, his name is AIR Max. What is the chemical symbol for air?



Illuminati confirmed.

4. imabench is literally a bench.

False. A bench is, "a long seat for several people, typically made of wood or stone."(5) Clearly a bench cannot debate, yet imabench has 600 debates.

5. Iannan13 has a Jew as his avatar and the Illuminati prohibited Jews from joining, so he can't be in the Illuminati.

Did the Illuminati prohibit Jews from joining? I request a source from my opponent. I admit that I've read this before, however I do not recall seeing any proof. But it wouldn't matter anyway. If it were true, it would have been merely to hide Weishaupt's background, since he was actually of Jewish ethnicity himself.(4) So whether he hypocritically banned Jews from his society isn't really relevant.

6. The Illuminati was against religion so YYW can't both be in the Illuminati and have a religious name.

The Illuminati borrowed rituals and allegories from Freemasonry, including the use of the Hebrew name Y-H-V-H (Jehovah). The religious interpret it as the god of their particular religion; atheists interpret it to merely signify the universe.

7. bsh1 is a guy.

I apologize for the confusion; however, even guys can be in the Illuminati.

8. My opponent's avatar is masonic, not related to the Illuminati, and Freemasons disliked the Illuminati.

My opponent cannot really say this because many Freemasons were in the Illuminati, most notably Weishaupt himself. My opponent also claims he's not in the Illuminati:

"But no, I'm not part of the Illuminati."

You know, that sounds awfully like something an Illuminatus would say! But in all seriousness, back to my opponent.

#1 - George Washington to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798
#2 - Original Writings [of the Illuminati], Volume 2, Letter 8, Adam "Spartacus" Weishaupt to "Cato" Zwack.
#3 - Last works of "Phillo" Knigge and "Spartacus" Weishaupt, degree of Regent.
#4 - https://ia802306.us.archive.org...(page 25)
#5 - Google search for "define:bench"
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Thank you, time for Rebuttals!

I. The Illuminati

A. Wikipedia is part of the Illuminati

Under this line of argumentation I claimed that the Illuminati was broken up by the government and furthermore suffered from inner-turmoil which ensured that it wouldn't continue as the same Bavarian Illuminati it once was regardless.

Pro now asserts that my source, Wikipedia, is lying because they are a part of the Illuminati. This is amusing because I purposely used the same wikipedia article that Pro did to refute his R1 claims. That was the point, but now he is attacking the validity of his own source. If he is going to dismiss his own source, then his own arguments also fail to stand. If his arguments fail to stand, then I win - since Pro has the burden to prove that DDO is run by the Illuminati.

In short, Pro defeats himself with this argument attacking *our* source.

B. The in-fighting wasn't the end of the Illuminati

Next up in this line of argumentation, Pro focuses on my point regarding the in-fighting and how the Illuminati would have still been doomed to fail regardless of being broken up by the government. Pro rebuts this by sharing a quote from Adam Weishaupt:

"I answer for nothing when I meet with resistance from my adepts; I have foreseen everything, and I have prepared everything. Let my whole Order go to rack and ruin; in three years I will answer to restore it, and that to a more powerful state than it is in at present -- Obstacles only stimulate my activity. I know how to turn them to my advantage; and when people think that I am undone, even then shall I rise stronger than ever. Let that person [Knigge] leave me who thinks that he can better himself elsewhere; and time will show who is mistaken. I know how to find men more docile. I can sacrifice whole provinces, the desertion of a few individuals, therefore, will not alarm me."

Pro follows this quote with an assertion that this is proof that the illuminati continued on. Pro is mistaken though. This portion of text was taken from a letter Weishaupt wrote to a fellow Illuminati member. In it, he was discussing the in-fighting between him and their #2 guy, Knigge. This text was written years before the Illuminati was actually broken up by the government.

So, it's not like Weishaupt wrote this after they were broken up, swearing to rebuild it once more... this was merely him claiming that they'll survive after losing their #2 guy. [1] This portion of text means nothing more, and thus, Pro's rebuttal stands defeated.

C. The illuminati was nothing more than a boys club

Pro shares the following quote, stating that it's proof that the Illuminati was more than a boys club.:

"... it is really the fact in some states, that potent Monarchs are governed by our Order ... When you have succeeded anywhere in making yourself master of the public authority and government, you will pretend not to have the least power ..."

This is not the case.

Take a look at the following link, specifically at the section titled, "Instruction B for the whole degree of Regent" http://www.sacred-texts.com... You'll see that this quote is merely bits and pieces from a set of rules that pertains to a specific order within their group, specifically part IV and part VIII. [2] With that in mind, recall back to my first round where I presented evidence of the leader, Adam Weishaupt, admitting to Knigge that the "orders" of their group have yet to be written, and that he even bribed Knigge to keep their fakeness a secret by promising him a role in writing these new "orders" within the group.

Thus, this is no proof whatsoever by Pro. Merely a quote from a set of made-up rules and orders. Anyone can write that they rule over monarchs or kings, including both you and me or anyone reading this debate, but that doesn't make it true. With Pro's lack of substantial evidence, his rebuttal stands defeated.

D. The belief in conspiracy circles that the Illuminati survives today and was behind the French Revolution is due to to unproven hypotheses of John Robison and Augustin Barruel.

Pro is right that Jacobins were primarily responsible for the 'Reign of Terror'. However, Pro is merely assuming the Illuminati were a part of them or even influential within that group at the time. Keep in mind, the 'Reign of Terror' took place in 1793-94, a time when the Illuminati were already broken up. Pro has yet to establish that they survived post-breakup with any substantial evidence.

Both authors, one of whom was a Jesuit (enemy of Masons & Illuminati) [3] hypothesize that the *Freemasons* were influencing the Jacobins. Pro takes it a step further by implying that the Illuminati were acting through the Freemasons, but we must keep in mind that there is no proof of the Illuminati infiltrating the Freemasons post-breakup. Simply stating that "they will or should" and actually "doing it" are two completely different things. Pro fails to provide evidence for the latter.

Pro then says that George Washington believed Jacobins and the Illuminati were the same thing. However, contrary to Pro's claim, G.W. consistently refers to them as separate entities throughout the correspondence Pro cited, as evidenced by his statement, "the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism has not spread in the United States." [4]

II. Juggle is part of the Illuminati

A. Pro thinks the two O's in Google mean eyes.

Pro clarifies by stating that, "Google is an adjective that describes bulging eyes, hence the link to Illuminati." Still nothing more than an unproven claim.

According to the Company history page [5]:




      • Google.com is registered as a domain on September 15, 1997. The name—a play on the word "googol," a mathematical term for the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros—reflects Larry and Sergey's mission to organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web.





Clearly Pro is mistaken with his "theory".

B. The founders of Debate.org aren't in the Illuminati.

Pro completely dismisses my case pertaining to the history of the founders and their lack of involvement in any illuminati-esque groups. Instead, he focuses on the source I used for their history, their LinkedIn pages. Pro claims LinkedIn is another illuminati page due to the sound of the name being similar to a Hebrew term for eye. I'm surprised he didn't argue that the dot in the eye was a circle, and that the circle is the same shape as an eye. I jest. In all seriousness, this is just another baseless claim from Pro.

His own argument works against him, he claims that just because there's no link between the founders and Illuminati doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. However, I'm not the one with the burden - he is. Him conceding that there is no evidence linking them clearly proves his own case wrong. You can't uphold a burden of proof without the *proof* part.

C. Axolotls develop eyelids.

Axolotls develop eyelids nonetheless, thus defeating his previous theory. He then relies on another theory regarding Airmax's name specifically, showing the chemical sign for air as proof of him being a part of the illuminati. Is Air itself part of the Illuminati? After all, it's chemical sign is a pyramid right? Of course not, air is an element. Perhaps Airmax is an element?!

That's the problem, when we apply Pro's manner of hypothesizing it's possible to draw a connection between nearly anything. While amusing, it's lacking any and all substance.

D. imabench is literally a Bench.

Dan Bench, otherwise known on DDO as imabench, is a human male of the Bench family, hence his surname. It is contextually acceptable to say that he is literally a Bench. Is he the type of bench which refers to an inanimate object? Obviously not. He is, however, someone from the Bench family, thus he is a Bench.

E. Iannan13 has a Jew as his avatar and the Illuminati prohibited Jews from joining, so he can't be in the Illuminati.

Pro requests a source regarding whether Jews were allowed in the Illuminati or not:

A system of mutual espionage kept Weishaupt informed of the activities and character of all his members, his favourites becoming members of the ruling council, or Areopagus. Some novices were permitted to recruit, becoming Insinuants. Jews and Pagans were specifically excluded, along with women, monks, and members of other secret societies. Favoured candidates were rich, docile, willing to learn, and aged 18–30.
[6]

F. The Illuminati was against religion so YYW can't both be in the Illuminati and have a religious name.

Pro has still failed to prove how YYW means YHVH when the member himself has stated what their name means.

G. bsh1 is a guy.

Pro drops my argument regarding the origin of his username as stated in my last round.

H. My opponent's avatar is masonic, not related to the Illuminati, and Freemasons disliked the Illuminati.

Pro is incorrect. It's the illuminati that joined the Freemasons, in order to learn from our rituals while forming their own, as I pointed out in my previous round. Regardless, Pro hasn't upheld his burden of proving I'm in the Illuminati.

This ultimately sums up Pro's major obstacle here, and why he will lose the debate - he has continously failed to provide any substantial evidence while ignoring the empirical explanations guided by rationality, and merely relies on far-fetched connections, unproven theories, and unsubstantiated claims by biased authors.

As it stands, Pro's entire case has been defeated. Pro has yet to prove the Illuminati ever surived their breakup, and more importantly, has failed to prove that DDO is run by the Illuminati.

Sources

[1] Memoirs, Illustrating the History of Jacobinism Pg. 203
[2] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://founders.archives.gov...
[5] https://www.google.com...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
FrodoDestroyIt

Pro

Okay, this is the last round. Let's tie this up!

I cited a source for facts supporting my case, and Con cited the same source for facts against it. I explained why the facts against it are false facts: because the source is Illuminati. Now Con's trying to say this undermines everything I based upon this source, but that isn't true; I can site a source without having to concede everything it says is true, and both I and Con agree that at least part of my source is correct anyways.

In the first round, Con said the government banned the Illuminati, and then afterwards, the "final straw" that ended them was a dispute between Weishaupt and Knigge. I proved this was false with that letter by Weishaupt, and Con responds by saying this letter was written "years before" the Illuminati was "actually broken up" by the government. This contradicts his previous claim that the dispute was the "final" straw that ended them, so which is it?

Did the government end the Illuminati, or did they end themselves through internal discord? My letter proves the dispute didn't end the Illuminati, and this was after the government ban, so ... the Illuminati were never actually shut down.

My opponent himself isn't sure so we can hardly trust his judgement, especially considering he's part of the Illuminati (apparently).


My opponent said the Illuminati was nothing more than a "boys' club", and I cited their writings saying they secretly controlled kings. My opponent basically responded that this was nonsense made up to entice new members into the order. Very well, let's pretend that's the case, even though this requires us to ignore the fact that our own President, Roosevelt, was in the Illuminati and put the All-Seeing Illuminati Eye on our money. How else can I prove that the Illuminati were more than a "boys' club"? The Illuminati want(ed) to instigate an international communist revolution. See my #4 source from the last round.

Some boys' club!


Con agrees the Jacobins did the Reign of Terror, but says they couldn't be the same as the Illuminati since the Illuminati were already done with. However, this goes back to the fact that Con didn't successfully refute my proof that they Illuminati were never really broken up, much less through internal disputes.

Con says my sources (Robison and Barruel) hypothesize the Jacobins were influenced by Freemasons, but this is misleading. Barruel's thesis is that the Jacobins were Illuminati-Freemasons, and goes to great lengths to assure Freemasons that he's not accusing Masons in general of being bloodthirsty like Jacobins; he only accuses those Freemasons who are "Illuminized", that is to say, Freemasons who are also in the Illuminati, even if they don't officially call themselves Illuminati. Recall what I and Weishaupt said previously about the Illuminati changing its name and hiding in the guise of Freemasonry.

Con says there's no proof the Illuminati infiltrated the Freemasons "post-breakup", but I already proved there was no actual breakup to speak of. The state where the Illuminati was founded, Bavaria, made them illegal, but there's no evidence this destroyed them, but proofs abound showing they changed their name and arose publicly in other nations, notably in France, where they instituted the Reign of Terror (some boys' club)!

George Washington considered the Jacobins and the Illuminati to be pretty much the same thing:


    • "I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the [Illuminati], or pernicious principles of the [Jacobins] (if they are susceptible of seperation)."


Google means bulging/staring [eyes]. Just because Google says otherwise only proves they are being dishonest Illuminati. Besides, my theory explains both the name and the rainbow color with one topic: eyes. Rainbow is iris in Greek, and Barney Google had googly eyes. Con hasn't come up with such a simple explanation like "eyes" that explains both the name Google and the choice of rainbow font. "Because it looks cool" won't be a sufficiently simple and logical explanation, and also, Google is not a "play on the word" googol. That would be called a misspelling. Google is smart enough to know this, therefore, they are not telling us the truth; therefore, they are Illuminati; therefore, Illuminati confirmed.

Con also fails to provide an equally simple and logical explanation for the choice of "in" as Linkedin's logo. My theory explains both Google and Linkedin: eyes.

Con insists I haven't proven the founders of Juggle are in the Illuminati, but I have, with all their Illuminati symbolism and their installing an Illuminati member as moderator of the site, etc.

Con satirizes my theory that the topic of "eyes" explains all the symbolism of DDO, Juggle, Google, Linkedin, airmax1227, etc. however you will note one thing about his satire: It's incoherent (he even says, "I jest.") He jokes about air being in the Illuminati, Airmax being an element, etc. so it's a false analogy to my own "eyes" hypothesis, which totally makes way more cents. It's not merely "amusing", like Con says. It's downright hilarious.

More importantly, it is true and 100% correct.

Con says Jews were banned from the Illuminati, yet I proved the founder of the Illuminati was a Jew so that's irrelevant. Also, lannan13 could be using a Jewish avatar as cover to throw people off; "Hey look I'm using a Jew as my avatar so I'm totally not Illuminati!" However, the Jew is Ayn Rand. Not only is she a woman, while lannan13 is a guy, but she's long since passed away, so nobody is going to be fooled into thinking lannan13 is the Jew Ayn Rand. In fact, this is so ridiculous that it pretty much proves lannan13 is in the Illuminati.

#confirmed


The source for Jews being banned is bunk anyway.

Sure, YYW said his name means "Yeah, yeah, whatever" but that's such a mundane and nonsensical explanation that it's definitely a trick to throw conspiracy-theorists off his scent. YYW is Y-Y-V-V is Y-H-V-H (obviously).

Therefore, Illuminati confirmed.


I do not need to provide further evidence that my opponent is in the Illuminati. His continued resistance to my accusations demonstrates a suspiciously adamant and defensive attitude, therefore we can be completely certain that he is indeed an Illuminatus.

Or certain enough to vote Pro.

Thanks for the debate! I appreciate the opportunity to debate an actual Illuminati member.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank Pro for his final round.

Let's recap the developments of this debate thus far:

Pro has set himself an incredibly high burden. The resolution is that DDO = Illuminati. Since "=" means "equal to" this resolution means that DDO equals the Illuminati. Of course, Pro has yet to prove this. That is to say, thus far, Pro has failed to uphold his Burden of Proof showing that DDO equals the Illuminati or is even ran by it. Instead of providing facts and substantial evidence, Pro has relied on conjecture, groundless assertions, and unproven claims built on unassociated symbolism popularized by conspiracy theorists.

On the flip side, I've relied on verifiable data which shows 1) that the Illuminati were facing serious inner-turmoil by 1783, 2) that the Illuminati were officially broken up by the government in 1785, and 3) that none of the DDO members Pro listed are actually members of the Illuminati.

Let's now wrap this up.

I. The Illuminati

A. Wikipedia as a Source

Pro concedes that parts of his source are correct even though he spent the last round arguing that it's all lies from the Illuminati since they, according to Pro, control wikipedia. The thing is, both Pro and I have utilized quotes from Illuminati members stating how they are meant to be in the shadows; a secret society. It logically follows that such a secret organization, if it did run wikipedia, wouldn't allow *any* information pertaining to them to be on the site at all. So, again, we can toss his theory out.

Furthermore, I utilized that source merely to present the inner-turmoil facing the group and the government break-up of the group, which can also be verified by additional sources other than wikipedia (see: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]). So, we can see that I didn't *have* to rely on wikipedia, as this information is verified by several independent sources, but rather I utilized wikipedia because it was the same article Pro utilized and, ironically, defeated Pro's own points regarding them ever surviving post break-up.

B. In-fighting amongst Illuminati members & their ultimate demise

Pro is additionally confused by my point regarding the "final straw that broke the camels back". Pro thinks that I claimed that the in-fighting amongst the members was the final straw that broke them up. This is a misunderstanding on his part. If you look at my Round 3 (the place where I first make this claim), I clearly state: "The final straw that broke the camels back internally was the fight between the two leaders, Weishaupt and Knigge." So, we can see that I was specifically referencing the in-fighting with this point, and never once claimed it was the final straw that broke them up for good.

In regards to Pro claiming the letter was written after the government broke them up, let's rely on the facts:

The government broke them up on March 2, 1785. The letter was written on January 20, 1783. [8] So clearly Pro is misinformed regarding the date of this letter, as it is empirically shown to have been written two years before the government broke them up. Since this is Pro's only real argument in regards to "proof" that they continued on after the government break-up, his entire case now stands defeated.

C. The illuminati was nothing more than a boys club

Pro concedes that the writings he utilized in the previous round regarding them "ruling over kings" is just made up.

Pro then claims that FDR was in the Illuminati, but provides no proof for this claim whatsoever. Instead he just relies on the fact that FDR allowed the inclusion of the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. So what? FDR was a Freemason [9], not a member of the Bavarian Illuminati, and Pro produced no evidence suggesting otherwise.

His final claim here is that the Illuminati wanted to instigate a international communist revolution. Again, *wanting* to do something, and actually *accomplishing* it are two different things. Pro has not given any evidence to support the latter.

D. The illuminati infiltrated Jacobins and Freemasons.

Pro's point regarding Jacobins being infiltrated rests solely on his previous claim that the letter written by Weishaupt proved they had survived the government break-up of their group. I have since shown that the letter was written two years prior to their break-up, defeating Pro's previous point. Thus, by extension, this argument stands defeated as well since it rested on Pro's disproved theory.

Pro additionally starts to back-pedal his previous claim that George Washington claimed the Jacobins and Freemasons were the same thing, to now saying that, "George Washington considered the Jacobins and the Illuminati to be pretty much the same thing".

Based on Pro's own quote, we can see that G.W. himself was hesitant to call them the same organization, and never once did. More so, this entire chain of letters Pro relies on additionally proves that the illuminati never infiltrated American Freemasonry, as I showed in my previous round utilizing direct quotes from Washington himself.

II. DDO is part of the Illuminati (DDO = Illuminati)

A. Google

Pro's entire argument is this: Google is owned by Illuminati, so obviously they wouldn't admit it, thus anything they say officially is just a cover-story, a lie. The problem with this is two-fold:

1) Pro has yet to prove that Google is owned, operated, or even influenced by the Illuminati in any rational way.
2) It unjustly dismisses any valid evidence counter to Pro's own theories based on mere assumptions by Pro.

Pro introduces a new convoluted theory regarding rainbows and Greek meaning. I've provided official reasoning from the site itself, and utilized quotes from the creators themselves including in regards to the origin of their name 'Google'. I believe the audience is reasonable enough to weigh my factual evidence accordingly against Pro's countless unproven theories.

B. LinkedIn and the founders of Juggle

Pro demands I provide an explanation for the "in" section of the name "Linkedin". Pro is mistaken on who has the burden of proof in this debate. It's *his* job to put forth evidence which tips the truth value of a claim in his favor. The status quo is not that Linkedin is part of the Illuminati. Since Pro is challenging the status quo it is he who must prove such a claim.

His original claim was that the "in" part, when pronounced, sounds like the Hebrew word "ayin". He is wrong though. Please look at this video: https://www.youtube.com... in it you will see an instructor pronouncing the word 'ayin' like, "AIY-N" not like, "inn" which is what Linked(in) sounds like when fully pronounced. So Pro's theory is wrong, and thereby defeated.

In regards to the owners of Juggle themselves, Pro claims he has proven their involvement in the Illuminati based on his symbolism theories. That's all he says. He's just restating a claim that I've already proven wrong in my last round, and contributes nothing to rebut my counter-evidence aside from claiming he's already done so. Thus, I extend all previous points regarding Juggle owners as they stand unchallenged by Pro in his final round.

C. Axolotls and Airmax1227

Pro drops the point about axolotls.

He further misunderstands my counter-example of Airmax being an element based on the first half of his name and what it means. The point was to show the futility of Pro's endless theories based on hollow symbolism, which still stands unchallenged by Pro since he failed to address that accurately in his final round. He claims his theories still make more sense, yet fails to provide any reasoning as to why, rather, he just insists they are once more. Total failure of his BOP.

D. Imabench

Pro drops this argument.

E. Lannan

Con says Jews were banned from the Illuminati, yet I proved the founder of the Illuminati was a Jew so that's irrelevant.

It's actually not irrelevant, it creates a rational ground for why a hypothesized member of the illuminati wouldn't have a Jew as their representative image. Since Jews were banned from membership, regardless of the founders own heritage, it logically follows that they wouldn't be using Jews as their image.

Also, lannan13 could be using a Jewish avatar as cover to throw people off


Key word - Could. No proof was given by Pro, another failure of his BOP.

F. YYW

Pro concedes that YYW has said his name means, 'Yeah, Yeah, Whatever'. Pro continues with his empty YHWH hypothesis, again, with no supporting evidence.

G. Bsh1

Pro drops this point.

H. Myself (BOT)

Pro claims that my response of denial is enough to prove I am a part of the Illuminati. Pro is mistaken, an absence of evidence is proof of nothing, and since he has provided no substantial evidence, he has proven nothing.

In Conclusion,

Pro's main case and rebuttals stand defeated, please vote Con.

Sources

[1] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 3 Chapter 2, pp202-226
[2] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 3 Chapter 3, pp227-250
[3] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 4 Chapter 1, pp343-388
[4] K. M. Hataley, In Search of the Illuminati, Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition, No. 23, Vol. 3. Autumnal Equinox 2012
[5] McKeown, Trevor W. (16 February 2009). "A Bavarian Illuminati Primer". Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A.M. Archived from the original on 27 January 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
[6] Roberts, J.M. (1974). The Mythology of Secret Societies. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 128–129. ISBN978-0-684-12904-4.
[7] Introvigne, Massimo (2005). "Angels & Demons from the Book to the Movie FAQ - Do the Illuminati Really Exist?". Center for Studies on New Religions. Archived from the original on 27 January 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
[8] Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism: A Translation from the French of the Abbe Barruel, pg. 200
[9] http://www.mastermason.com...
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings/ Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org......

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate's voting period ended over 2 months ago, making it well outside of the statute of limitations for vote moderation.
***********************************************************************
Posted by WAM 6 months ago
WAM
Looking through this just quickly, did nobody realise that the Illuminati had no relation to the all-seeing eye, pyramid figures or eyes in any way shape or form. Their symbol was an owl.. Meaning that literally all of pro's arguments would collapse...

The all-seeing eye is masonic......
Posted by JustAnotherDebator 6 months ago
JustAnotherDebator
lol FrodoDestroyIt he played you buddy he said he had a fever of 100.7 that's a reference to goldeye .007 & Strong's Number 1700.

PM me
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: red_x// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: They both had incredible conduct which is why they are tied in that category. Spelling and grammar goes to blade because frodo's first round post had errors in it. Both made really convincing arguments and both used good sources, so really it came down to spelling.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. The arguments of one side have to be difficult to read in order to award this point " individual errors are insufficient by themselves.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Emmarie// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD - both contestants strayed so far from the resolution, "DDO = Illuminati" that I had a difficult time judging this debate. Pro's argument that the Illuminati continue to exist is convincing but his arguments that the Illuminati are related in any way to DDO have not been proven to satisfaction of meeting the BoP. Con's rebuttals did not satisfy that the Illuminati ceases to exist, but his arguments against the Illuminati having anything to do with DDO are valid. Given that Con did a better job of rebutting the resolution argument points go to him.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does a sufficient job explaining the decision within the context of the debate and each debaters' BoP.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Objectivity// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 3 points to Con (S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I am torn, on one hand Neg misses the target of what was a seemingly satirical debate by providing actual evidentiary rebuttals, and on the other, if this debate is to be evaluated seriously, his arguments do hold more water in their totality. Because there is no dispute that Con gave better arguments (aff continuously cited conspiracy sites and wikipedia), sources go to him. Since even if the debate was satirical, that doesn't necessitate poor spelling and grammar, so that also goes to neg. I give arguments to aff because the nature of his Round 1 introduction leads me to believe the intention was a satirical debate, which neg missed the point of with his rebuttals. Interesting debate.

[*Reason for removal*] While troll debates aren't moderated, both sides have to agree to engage in the satirical aspects in order for this to apply. As Con didn't participate, this vote will be moderated as though it were a serious debate. (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to explain why Con's sources were good and not just why Pro's sources weren't. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Poor S&G may inform this decision, but it must be bad enough as to harm reading comprehension. The voter doesn't explain how that's the case. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The nature of the debate alone is not a basis for awarding these points, and the voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 8 months ago
Blade-of-Truth
Lol, well your name starts with yo = "o" = eyes = all-seeing eye = Illuminati confirmed
Posted by yomama12 8 months ago
yomama12
So how exactly do I connect in all of this? :T
Posted by Emmarie 8 months ago
Emmarie
You guys both did a great job and I had a difficult time voting.
Posted by Objectivity 8 months ago
Objectivity
correction on voting RFD: *because there was no dispute that con gave better sources
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 7 months ago
YYW
FrodoDestroyItBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON showed that DDO members were not members of the illuminati; in particular, Airmax, Imabench, Lannan, Bsh1, BOT, and, yours truly.... all are not members of the Illumaniti, and moreover, the reasons PRO offered as to why each listed member was a member of the illuminati did not stand up to any scrutiny. CON therefore wins and PRO must lose.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 7 months ago
fire_wings
FrodoDestroyItBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/85493/
Vote Placed by Emmarie 8 months ago
Emmarie
FrodoDestroyItBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD - both contestants strayed so far from the resolution, "DDO = Illuminati" that I had a difficult time judging this debate. Pro's argument that the Illuminati continue to exist is convincing but his arguments that the Illuminati are related in any way to DDO have not been proven to satisfaction of meeting the BoP. Con's rebuttals did not satisfy that the Illuminati ceases to exist, but his arguments against the Illuminati having anything to do with DDO are valid. Given that Con did a better job of rebutting the resolution argument points go to him.