Illuminati Existance Debate
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 5/15/2011 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 3,666 times | Debate No: | 16524 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (17)
 Con Uh, I'll let my opponent start with the first argument.  Pro .
. . Introduction My opponent opposes the claim that the Illuminati exists. To fulfill my burden and demonstrate that the Illuminati exists I will:
To win, my opponent must provide an argument to demonstrate that said Illuminati members don't actually exist in the world that we both believe to be real. Any argument which tries to use a solipsist denial of existence shall be dismissed for it misses the point of the debate. Definition of the Illuminati The Illuminati is a network of global elites all of which are connected either by the 13 royal bloodlines or connected ideologically, who conspire towards an oppressive global government agenda and are usually members a number of occult secret societies. This group has existed for thousands of years under different guises. [1] [2] [3] Evidence of the Illuminati's Existence Let's first acknowledge some undeniable facts: - People referred to as global elites exist i.e. international bankers, members of international organizations, corporate owners, media moguls, heads of state, leadership administrations, intelligence operatives, etc. - Secret societies exist. - Royal bloodlines exist. - The ideology of globalism exists. I will intend to show that the global elites are in fact members of secret societies, part of royal bloodlines, and promote a globalist agenda. Secret Society Membership of Global Elites Freemasons: Winston Churchill, Simon Bolivar, Edmund Burke, Benito Juarez, Edward VII, Geroge VI, Bernardo O'Higgins, José de San Martin, Francisco de Paula Santander, José Rizal, José Marti, Pandit Nehru, Lajos Kossuth, Jonas Furrer, Guiseppe Mazzini (region leader of Illuminati), Eduard Benes, John A. MacDonald, Aaron Burr, George McGovern, Barry Goldwater, Estes Kefauer, Thomas E. Dewey, Alf Landon, Hubert H. Humphrey, Wendel Wilke, W.E.B. DuBois, William Jennings Bryant, King Hussein of Jordan, Yasser Arafat, Francois Mitterand, Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Shroeder, Tony Blair, Yikzak Rabbin, Cecil Rhodes, Sir John J.C. Abbott, Stephen F. Austin, John G. Diefenbaker, Samuel J. Ervin Jr. (Watergate committee), Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sam Nunn, Lowell Thomas (brough Lawrence of Arabia to pub. not.), Gov. George C. Wallace, Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms, Robert Dole, Jack Kemp, Al Gore, Prince Phillip (GB), Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lord Peter Carrington, Andrew Carnegie, W. Averell Harriman, Henry Kissinger, Richard D. Heideman, Robert McNamara, Henry Ford, Samuel Gompers, Walter P. Chrysler, John Wanamaker, S.S. Kresge, J.C. Penney, John Jacob Astor, John L. Lewis, Pehr G. Gyllenhammar (Volvo), Percy Barnevik (ABB), André Citroën, Samuel Colt (Colt revolver), Edwin L. Drake (oil), Rockefeller family, Rothschild family, King C. Gillette (Razors), Charles C. Hilton (Hilton hotels), Sir Thomas Lipton (Tea), Harry S. New (Airmail), Ransom E. Olds (Oldsmobile), David Sarnoff (father of TV), John W. Teets, Dave Thomas (Wendy's Rest.), Edgar Bronfman Jr. (Seagram Whiskey), Rich DeVos (Amway), Alan Greenspan (Fed. Reserve), Giovanni Agnelli (FIAT), Peter Wallenberg (SE-Bank Sweden), Albert Pike (region leader of Illuminati). [4] Bohemian Club: the Bushes, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Merv Griffin, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Danny Glover, and 3,000 others. [5]
Bilderberg Group: Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, the Rockefellers, Gerald Ford, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Peter Jennings, Colin L. Powell, William McDonough, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and about 115 powerful people. [5] [6]
I could go on and on listing even more secret societies, but those are some of the more prominent ones. I haven't even gotten into the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Ordo Templi Orientis, Knights of Malta, the Templar Knights, Opus Dei, Order of the Golden Dawn, etc. As you can see above though, many of those global elites are actually part of the royal bloodlines such as the Rockefellers, Astors, Rothschilds, etc. In fact Barack Obama, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Dick Cheney are all related. [7]
Proof of a Globalist Agenda Now that we've established that the global elites are connected to secret societies and royal bloodlines, let's establish that these global elites have a globalist agenda: "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop OUR PLAN FOR THE WORLD if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an INTELLECTUAL ELITE and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."-- David Rockefeller in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991. [8] "The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'" Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962) [8] "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -- David Rockefeller pg. 405 of Rockefeller's autobiography, "Memoirs" [9] "There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult. This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. Its membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally." -- Victor Marchetti (CIA Director's Assistant) in his book 'The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence' [10] Ex-Illuminati Members - Leo Lyon Zagami (Illuminati Grand Master, 33rd Degree Freemason, Italian aristocrat) - Svali (Illuminati Mind Control Programmer, born into an American Illuminati family) I will provide proof of affiliation in the next round. Conclusion The Illuminati exists. Sources [1] http://www.crystalinks.com... [2] http://www.illuminati-news.com... [3] http://svalispeaks.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.illuminati-news.com... [5] http://www.americanchronicle.com... [6] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [7] http://www.rense.com... [8] http://www.svpvril.com... [9] http://en.wikiquote.org... [10] http://www.redicecreations.com... |
 |
|
Con TechnoViking forfeited this round.
Pro My opponent was so fervently opposed to the idea that the Illuminati exists, yet he could come up with no counter-argument. All arguments exended. |
 |
|
Con TechnoViking forfeited this round.
Pro My opponent has failed to provide any arguments once again. Argument extended. |
 |
Post a Comment
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by MouthWash 1 year ago
Report this Comment
Posted by basegod 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by FREEDO 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 2 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
Report this Comment
12Next »
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 6 months ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was INCREDIBLY organized. Pro's analysis of the burdens was spot-on. Pro's ability to create a logical step-by-step analysis of his advocacy was admirable (I liked the outline of where you were going to go too.) Pro wins conduct, s/g, arguments, and sources. Great job!
Vote Placed by StevenDixon 10 months ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 11 months ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Pro's sources were awful.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: I votebombed this here debate!! :D
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 1 year ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly the Illuminati is responsible for Con's loss.
Vote Placed by BennyW 1 year ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: I guess the illuminati prevented con from answering.
Vote Placed by Chicken 1 year ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: kfc
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: chick-fil-a
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF, and he posted no sources, and no arguments. Automatic win for Pro.
Vote Placed by MasterKage 2 years ago
| TechnoViking | GeoLaureate8 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro for the forfeits.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Pro is the only one who made arguments.
Sources: Pro used sources, while Con had none.