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

MTV Is Run By Masons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/12/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,225 times Debate No: 68222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Esiar

Pro

MTV Is Run By Masons. Accept in round 1.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I accept the debate.

I wish Pro the best of luck and thank him for starting this thought-provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

1. One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple.
http://media.tumblr.com...

2. Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right (And her pant leg resembles a Masonic checkerboard)
http://media.tumblr.com...

There's probably more stuff like this, but I think these are the most obvious.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Clarification

As a Freemason, I find debates of this nature to be extremely interesting, hence why I accepted.

For Pro, the burden is to prove, beyond a doubt, that MTV is run by Freemasons.

For Con, I must negate any proof he presents, and if I do so, I win. I will also introduce counter-arguments in addition to rebuttals to further negate the resolution at hand.

Arguments

I. "Is run by" = "Is owned by"

My opponent shapes this entire resolution around the premise that Freemasons run MTV. This is essentially Pro saying that MTV is owned and operated by Freemasons.

In reality, MTV is owned and run by Viacom, which is an American global mass media company with interests primarily in cinema and cable television. [1]

So who owns Viacom? Well, the man responsible for running, at-least, the MTV portion of Viacom is Tom Freston [2]. After extensive research, there are no records of Tom Freston being an active Freemason. There are no lodges that hold him within their membership according to my research.

If Pro wishes to continue this line of argumentation, he must prove that Tom Freston is an active or inactive Freemason. Without that proof, there is no reason for anyone, including myself and the judges, to accept that MTV is run by Freemasons.

Rebuttals

II. "One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple."

So what? Does living next to a Muslim mosque make you a Muslim yourself? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, Pro doesn't even provide evidence for this claim, he merely shares an image showing the inside of a Masonic Lodge.

There is a big difference between being located "IN" a Masonic Temple and being located "BY" a Masonic Temple. Pro has given zero evidence for either claim to be considered valid or true.

III. "Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right"

Pro utilizes the exact same picture as the other one he shared in the previous argument. It's the same picture of the inside of a Masonic Lodge.

Pro needs to show how similarities between the MTV Video Music Awards and the Masonic floor pattern are connected. Merely having the same pattern or design does not prove anything. If I live in a house with Mediterranean tiles as my floor pattern, does that mean I'm Mediterranean? Absolutely not.

In closing,

Pro has provided zero evidence for a link between MTV and Freemasons running it. He has merely relied on conspiracy-influenced images which don't even show a comparison or connection. Furthermore, I've not only provided a counter-argument showing who really runs MTV, but I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Pro.

I now return the floor to Pro, thank you.

Sources

[1] http://www.viacom.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

1. They would be secret Freemasons. I obviously can't give proof for that, but It's an assumption based off of the other points I made.

2. I accidentally liked the wrong pictures: It should be these:
Masonic Temple - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com... (The compass is also still there: http://www.wtfrly.com...) It's on the blue wall on the second link.

VMA reformance + Checkerboard Pant Leg - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com...

Masonic Ritual - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com...
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to thank Pro for his final round and will now begin with my closing rebuttals.

Arguments/Rebuttals

I. "Is run by" = "Is owned by"

In this line of argumentation I expanded on who really owns MTV, a multi-national media company called Viacom. The man who runs the MTV portion of Viacom is Tom Freston, as shown in my previous round. I stated in the last round that for Pro's premise to be considered valid he would need to present proof of Tom Freston being a Freemason.

In response, Pro said the following:

"They would be secret Freemasons. I obviously can't give proof for that, but It's an assumption based off of the other points I made."

This is the problem... Pro said, "it's an assumption". Unfortunately, that is not enough to affirm Pro's position. Pro needs to uphold the BOP (Burden of Proof), which is the obligation to prove one's assertion. Without such proof, there is no reason to accept Pro's assumptions as valid. In short, assumptions are unfortunately not enough to uphold the burden of proof that is needed to affirm Pro's position. Additionally, pictures of a Masonic temple or celebrities on MTV add nothing to the claim that MTV is owned by Freemasons.

What Pro needed to do to uphold his burden was provide sound proof to validate his assumptions. That could have come in the form of Tom Freston wearing a Masonic ring in a picture, perhaps a Masonic logo on his vehicle, or a picture of him attending a Masonic lodge. Unfortunately for Pro, no such evidence was given, thus there is absolutely no reason to *assume* that he is a Freemason.

I could claim that Brittney spears is a Freemason too, but without proof there is no reason to accept such a claim as a valid one. Hence this line of argumentation remains standing while Pro's assumptions stand defeated due to a lack of valid proof.

II. "One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple."

Pro offered no rebuttal for this line of argumentation. Thus I extend it as it remains standing unchallenged by Pro.

Pro's initial claim was that one of MTV's offices are located in a building that once served as a Masonic temple, thus MTV is run by Freemasons. However, if you look at the Wikipedia page for that specific building, it shows a CTV sign. [1] The article goes on to say that before the building was purchased by CTV, "it housed live music clubs known as the Concert Hall."

In addition to the previous owners not being Freemasons, MTV itself decided to move its office to another location in the city and sold the building to an IT-firm on June 17, 2013. So... the building isn't even occupied by MTV anymore. [2] [3]

With it shown that the building itself has been under numerous owners, there is no reason to assume that just because MTV happened to be one of many occupants during it's history that MTV is run by Freemasons.

Lastly, during the sale of the building from MTV to an IT-firm, the local Freemasons attempted to reclaim the building for themselves. [4] This raises the question as to why they'd want to reclaim the building for themselves if they technically own/run it themselves. It just doesn't make sense.

The evidence is clear, the fact that MTV *temporarily* occupied the building holds no weight for the claim that Pro tried making by saying that "because they are located in a Masonic temple = they are run by Freemasons". This line of argumentation from Pro stands defeated.

III. "Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right"

Ah, I just noticed the 2nd picture Pro shared which shows the Masonic symbol with the words "concert hall" right above it on the brick interior wall. This makes perfect sense though since the Masonic temple became the "concert hall" after the masons moved out.

The mimicry of the celebrities in the MTV awards picture in regards to the Masonic ritual of being tied with a noose while blindfolded and tied hands does nothing to affirm that MTV is run by Freemasons. That ritual is highly sacred, and if MTV WAS owned by Freemasons, they'd never allow non-masons to mimic such rituals publicly, especially if the celebrity is uninitiated. Furthermore, the celebrity in the image wasn't even mimicking the ritual in full. There was no noose, nor was the celebrity wearing the white-clothes which is a key part of the ritual.

To the untrained eye, it really does look very similar.

To the trained eye though, it's clear that it is far from the actual ritual, as well as the fact that a Mason would never allow a celebrity to mimic such a sacred ritual publicly.

If anything, it is merely the script-writers and production teams for the show leeching off the latest fad of illuminati nonsense. It's easy to appear as if you are involved in Masonry, especially to the dumbed-down public which knows nothing of Masonic rituals unless they themselves have visited a temple and partook in the rituals themselves.

Thus, these images do nothing in terms of providing substantial evidence in Pro's attempt of affirming the resolution. All they reflect are modern television shows (which is what the awards are) hopping on the illuminati bandwagon to increase viewer retention and rates due to the intriguing nature that surrounds such things as 'secret societies'.

In closing,

Pro dropped a major argument. Pro also failed to provide any substantial evidence and reasoning to show that MTV is run by Freemasons. On the flip side, I've provided rebuttals to each line of argumentation while utilizing valid evidence and sources. With Pro's lack of substantial evidence and arguments which were based solely on assumptions, I believe the resolution stands negated.

I want to thank Pro for this invigorating debate, and look forward to any and all challenges in the future!

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Toronto)
[2] http://www.blogto.com...
[3] http://www.cbc.ca...
[4] http://www.thestar.com...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
EsiarBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro's terse arguments were adequately dealt with explanations at every contention. As especially highlighted with the first contention, Pro's arguments relied on "assumptions", and Con at least showed doubt wherever Pro had a decent argument. I'll tie sources because Pro's and Con's were both numerous and made some decent argument.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
EsiarBlade-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 utterly refutes pro, with more sources too.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
EsiarBlade-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 refutes Pro's case completely. Con shows that MTV is run by Viacom in his first round.