The Instigator
jacobstokes
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lsumichiganfan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Do the Iluminati exist?????

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,185 times Debate No: 77520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

jacobstokes

Pro

Do the Illuminati exist or not? Do they own things such as the music industry?
Lsumichiganfan

Con

I accept I assume the 1st round is acceptance only..... I will be con
Debate Round No. 1
jacobstokes

Pro

The Illuminati were started back in 1776 by a German named Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria Germany. They were a very secretive organisation but soon spiralled into obscurity when secret organisations were made illegal in Germany. I strongly believe they have a heavy influence on the music industry as many of their symbols can be spotted throughout events and by pop stars posing with their hands in a triangular shape. They are also said to be behind things such as the French Revolution and even the 9/11 attacks. Many of some artists lyrics contain alleged secret messages from the group. Tupac (a wrapper from the 90's) was killed by them after he said he didn't believe they were real to the public although knowing they were and was killed by them when he stopped at a red light. It was the same fate for his wrapping companion Biggie.
They want world domination however this will take time and with this they want a global government,
I conclude they exist.
Lsumichiganfan

Con

Okay here I am ready to debate this stupid topic I don't know why I accepted this but nevertheless I am debunking a stupid theory off to my debate....

The illuminati didn't do the 9/11 terror attacks they were done by a terrorist group called Al-Qadea which their leader Osama Bin Laden was killed on May 2 2012 so no the illuminati didn't do the 9/11 attacks Tupac is just a unsolved mystery and people throw the Illuminati under the bus of course just like Robin William's? Now here we go some of my reasons....

The Illuminati is secretive: Sure they are sure.... If the illuminati was secretive they wouldn't want the whole entire public knowing about nor making memes or talking about it so the illuminati isn't secretive and the celebrity's who are in the secret organization wouldn't be flashing symbols everywhere any secret organization wouldn't allow that.

The Illumanti theory came alive in 2009 the Illumanti theory was made up by a couple people in their basement and it went viral of course the famous people will do whatever is viral ALS ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE, The dress, and the illumanti is still popular that's way companies have started doing those secret symbols to get people exacted that companies are getting involved in this false viral sensation. To get more customers! And the opposed illumanti symbol is used to represent Americas freedom just some retard stuck it on there. And the 666 that is a number for the devil not the illumanti. Good luck.................
Debate Round No. 2
jacobstokes

Pro

Look I know Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks but would you say its impossible that they had backing from the Illuminati or were given a huge chunk of cash to commit the act of terror?
The thing about them not really being secretive is completely barbaric. They need people to know they exist to remind everyone that they are here and still exist. Which is why many references can be found to them in songs and by song writers posing with there hands in the shape of illuminati, which by the way I know is only associated with them but if that's enough to get people to believe they are out there then of course they would do it. And the thing about people in their basement well that's just a whole other level of stupidity. They were a real organisation founded in 1776. And when did I mention anything about the number 666. I have never ever seen that associated with the illuminati as almost everyone knows that's the devils number.
Good luck...............
Lsumichiganfan

Con

To my argument

Al-Qadea did not receive any help for the 9/11 terror attacks the government was warned about a possible attack from Al-Qadea prior to 9/11 the "Illuminati" had no involvement in it. And pro claims they need people to know they exist and to remind everyone that they are here and still exist" Give me a break Pro I thought the Illuminati was a secretive organization? You stated in round 2 that "They were a very secretive organization" Voters Pro is changing his mind to secretive and not secretive. Who cares if the celebrity's do it! Its a viral sensation that sprung all over the Internet! I said this in the 2nd round but of course you ignored it (Voters he has only rebutted two points I have made) Famous people want to get in the viral buzz the fake Illuminati! And yes I will say that the Illuminati was founded in 1776 but it doesn't exist anymore that's what I am arguing! And yes Conspiracy theories are made by people sometimes in their basement.... Why wasn't the Illuminati popular in the 90s? Because nobody made it up! That's why! Also why would World leaders participate in such a group! Why hasn't anything been leaked from the illuminati! Everything is leaked these days even from the NSA! Also the 666 has been related to the illuminati many times concerning that some people think the illuminati is the devil........ VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
I would really like to address some arguments here...

CON's 1st argument: CON simply stated what he believes and claimed that unproved information was true. It's like me saying, "There were Unicorns living on the Earth 1000 years ago" without any proof.

PRO's 1st argument: On his first paragraph, PRO simply stated unproven information that might very well be a cover-up by a secret organization, and did not provide any evidence for his claims. In his second paragraph, he said "The Illuminati is secretive" as if he was admitting that they exist, and provided no evidence for his third paragraph.

Both's 2nd arguments: No proof at all. They were fighting by making things up and barely provided any evidence for their claims. Certain Debates do not require evidence, such as a Debate about whether or not something is rational. This Debate, however, is trying to argue whether or not a specific group of people is real- And none of the sides provided any evidence on their second argument (Last Round). I conclude that both sides were pretty bad at defending their opinions, but didn't need to, seeing as they both made false or unproven claims as an attack to the other's side.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: mfigurski80// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments) and 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Spelling goes to PRO. People sometimes forget that this is important... And arguments go to CON, as PRO had no backing at all and CON actually explained some Illuminati theories. Good debate from both sides.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for the S&G point allocation. Simply saying that it"s important doesn"t showcase where in the debate bad spelling was found. (2) It"s unclear from reading the debate that any spelling mistakes seriously impair the ability of the voter to understand Con"s arguments. S&G should only be allocated if the mistakes are substantial enough to make reading one side"s argument difficult. (3) Arguments are not sufficiently explained. Whether an argument has backing or explanation doesn"t say anything of its validity. The voter needs to specifically compare points in order to show that he actually read the debate and is being fair to both sides in his evaluation thereof.

Note: The person who reported this vote implied that this voter may be biased. It is part of my efforts as vote moderator to read through a vote and determine whether it stands as a reasonable assessment of the debate. Whether a voter may be biased by other factors or not does not affect that decision. Unless there is obvious bias in the RFD itself, bias will not be a reason for a vote"s removal.
******************************************************************************
Posted by monseiurpug 2 years ago
monseiurpug
As they say, even if you have no hard evidence supporting a theory, it doesn't mean that you have disproved it.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 2 years ago
Lsumichiganfan
No and yes when I feel I am ready to debate I will debate
Posted by jacobstokes 2 years ago
jacobstokes
So your going to wait it out then.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 2 years ago
Lsumichiganfan
What? You set the time at 3 days? Thats your fault man
Posted by jacobstokes 2 years ago
jacobstokes
Your going to wait 2 days. Wow.
Posted by jacobstokes 2 years ago
jacobstokes
Really?
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 2 years ago
Lsumichiganfan
I have 2 days take a chill pill
Posted by jacobstokes 2 years ago
jacobstokes
Will CON please present their argument for R2.
No votes have been placed for this debate.