The Illuminati Doesn't Exist
Debate Rounds (5)
Bear in mind my opponent has taken on the BOP and must show that in fact the Illuminati does not exist. I must offer rebuttals to his argument. I will state I do not believe they exist, but I also believe it is impossible to show they do not. Much like arguing the concept of God. So i will argue from the perspective that there is a possibility they do exist. I await my adversaries opening argument.
First, I'd like to give a brief history lesson on the term "Illuminati". This term was first used in the 18th century when the "Bavarian Illuminati" formed. Their main purpose was to promote women's rights and gender equality.
With that being said, WHY and HOW is the term "Illuminati" tied to a worldwide control group that controls most governments? Also, the term "Illuminati" was first used in the 18th century. Yet, a common theory of the Illuminati is that they have been around since the beginning of humanity. That makes no sense! How could that have been a term in the beginning of humanity when it was a term created much later.
Now, my second paragraph was only to show that the term "Illuminati" shouldn't be used to describe a government-control group. None of that was evidence that they exist. Everything else from here on out will be my proof. I will use some of the most common Illuminati theories and prove why they are wrong.
1. The Illuminati is a secret organization.
Hmm...that's real interesting, considering if you were to survey 50 people on the street, at least 45 of them would be able to tell you what the Illuminati supposedly is. So, how is that secretive? It's not! Even celebrities that are supposedly in the Illuminati don't keep it secret, flashing the Illuminati signs (I'll get to celebrities in a minute). The bottom line is, if the Illuminati did exist, they would try a little harder to keep it secret, and obviously, that's not the case.
2. The overseeing eye represents them and their control.
The overseeing eye was actually used on the $1 bill to represent America's freedom, not a government control group.
3. Celebrities that use the "666" and "Overseeing Eye" symbols are in the Illuminati,
First off, with the exposure that is now on this so called "Illuminati", those celebrities definitely wouldn't be allowed to use those symbols. Secondly, and this is just a personal theory, but celebrities most likely only use those signs to generate publicity from people unwise enough to do their research on the Illuminati and come to a conclusion that it is a false theory. Yes it's negative publicity, but it's still publicity, and publicity means more money in the pocket.
Of course, we have to talk about the 666 symbol. Yes, it's been used by some celebrities. However, why does this relate to the Illuminati. Let's face it, most of the people that use it aren't part of the Illuminati, however they use the symbol because they find humor with Satanism (ex. Marilyn Manson).
Therefore, these symbols are used for publicity, for humor, but not a sign that they are part of the Illuminati.
4. Zionists and Free-masons are predominantly involved with the Illuminati and use the power of Satan to help them.
Let's start out with the Free-masons. The Free-masonry isn't a group that even focuses on religion. It is a group that has to do with stone masonry. It includes people who are Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Athiest, Agnostic, and others. How does this have to do with Stan. It doesn't.
Now Zionists aren't Satan worshippers either. Zionists are a branch of the Jewish religion. Another history lesson:
Anywhere from 7-2 BC, Jesus Christ was born. He was the Son of God sent to Earth. However, some believed that he was the son of god, some didn't. Those who believed he was the son of God joined him and formed the Christian religion. Those who didn't believe he was the son of God obviously didn't follow him, and they remained Jewish.
So basically, those of the Jewish and Christian religions both believe in the same God, but the difference is that Christians believe Jesus Christ is the messiah, while the Jewish are still awaiting the messiah to come to Earth.
Therefore, if Jewish people believe and trust in God, how is that Satan worshipping? Also, if Judaism isn't a Satanic worshipping religion, then how is its' branch (Zionism) a Satanic worshipping religion, simply put, it's not.
Now that I've showed why the Free-masons and the Zionists aren't devil worshippers, let's talk about why they aren't affiliated with the Illuminati. There are a lot of celebrities who are not only involved with Free-masonry and Zionism, but also supposedly are part of the Illuminati. Well, if you reference my third point, you can conclude that these celebrities are "pretending" to be part of the Illuminati for publicity. That's all that needs to be said there. Their ties to Free-masonry and Zionism have nothing to do with the Illuminati.
I think I covered enough of the Illuminati theory for now. I you have any more you want me to talk about, don't hesitate to ask me.
To conclude, I'm going to talk about your statement "I will state I do not believe they exist, but I also believe it is impossible to show they do not." Yes, there's always a possibility that the Illuminati does exist and there's something we don't know yet that could show that. However, as I have covered in my argument, there is not a single theory in the Illuminati theory that is coherent. I don't need to have factual data proving that they don't exist. All I have to do is shoot down every theory that says it exists. If I prove all the evidence that states the Illuminati exists to be wrong, then there's not too many signs indicating that they exist, is there?
Thank you for your time and I can't wait to read your opinion.
I will offer rebuttals in the next round but will build a case of my own in this one.
I would like to make 2 contentions.
It is impossible to show the Illuminati does not exist
Remember if this organization does exist, it would be held as a top secret among the higher ups within it. Since the organization is a very subjective term we can only go by evidence that people offer. The eye of providence or the all seeing eye has become associated with this group, as a way to show that they see all and know all. Let us take a look at some of the things associated with this enigma. First is the dollar bill.
It is quite obvious that the eye we see all the time, is on the dollar itself. It also appears in various games, movies, and music videos. The simple point behind this contention that is because we see this symbol quite often, it can very well be a fact they do exist. It is often shown within people of great fame and high power, and can be found anywhere and everywhere. This is an example of this below
We often see celebrities portraying this with a hand over their eye, or a circle around it. These are just a few images but there are a vast amount more. I mean to say that we can see evidence of people showing signs that are associated with the Illuminati all over the media and in different venues of society. If this is an organization of higher power people, no one would easily reveal it. Some people even have hinted at it though, in songs and videos. This is one example of which, where Michael Jackson was speaking about it. It should appear as a youtube video in the top right corner of my argument.
As shown in that youtube video, he is quite possibly referring to them. Some people would argue he took a stand against the organization and ended up dead and his career in shambles. That being said the simple contention I offer is this. With this many people making reference to, and with all the signs we see associated with it, it is impossible to prove it does not exist. It is an assumption people can draw from context clues. This is much the case with arguing a God. You believe by faith, and my job is not to prove they do exist but show that there is a reason why people believe they do. There is piles of evidence that people can draw this conclusion from.
The Illuminati itself may not be what people assume it is.
I really will not have to build much on this point but it is self explanatory. People assume that the Illuminati are associated with devil worshiping and the free masons. This is where I myself believe in them in a way. I think there is a high probability that the Illuminati itself is just a metaphor for corporate america. If you looked at that video by Michael Jackson, he is talking about taking a stand against them and not letting them change you.
A song by Bob Marly people often associate with this as well.
"They don't want to see us unite,"All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting. They don't want to see us live together: All they want us to do is keep on killing one another."
Also one by Tupac
"I’m seeing it clearer
Painting a picture in the mirror
They claim we inferior
So why the f**k these devils fear ya
I’m watching my nation die
Genocide and cause
Expect a bloodbath
The aftermath is yours
I told you last album
We need help cause we dying
Give us a chance
Help us advance cause we trying
Ignore my whole plea
Watching us in disgust
And then they beg when my guns bust
They don’t give a f**k about us"
"If I choose to ride
Thuggin’ till the day I die
Nobody gives a f**k about us
But when I start to rise
A hero in they children’s eyes
Now they give a f**k about us"
The big inference to draw from those are the words "they". People automatically associate this with the Illuminati which is a possibility, but if we look at it from a logical perspective it actually sounds like they are talking about corporate america. Essentially saying they do not care about death or if they screw people over, they want their money. Tupac goes on to say if you call them out on it then they pay attention to you. An interesting point to also mention, all three of these artist who made a song or came out taking a stand vs this idea of the Illuminati all are dead and in the process had to fight for their careers because of different chargers brought against them. While some people think the Illuminati is actually an origination you get initiated into, it is a similar and high probability that it is really just a metaphor for corporate america and how they change people. Even with that possibility they exist, even if just in concept.
I have shown how people can logically conclude they do exist. My job is not to show they do exist, but to prove explanations and reasons as to why some people believe this. Pro must show beyond any doubt, that they in fact are false and can not and do not exist. I have gave multiple reasons and ideas as to why there is a possibility they may actually exist. So that is the only conclusion we can arrive at.
I can, however, show why the Illuminati doesn't exist through logic.
So, most of your argument is based on the fact that celebrities reference this "controlling power". For example, you show pictures of celebrities doing the Illuminati signs, and also, show celebrities referencing what could be the Illuminati.
Let's start out with celebrities referencing the signs, which are the over seeing eye and the 666 symbol. I've already talked about this subject and how those signs cannot be tied to a controlling government power. Here's another perspective.
Like I said before, this is more logic based than it is evidence based. The Illuminati Conspiracy Theory started out in 2009. All of those celebrities who are using those symbols are mostly celebrities that made it famous during or after 2009. Most of the celebrities that use those symbol started using them during of after 2009 (with the exception of Marilyn Manson and others). It doesn't make sense that all these celebrities start using these symbols RIGHT AFTER this theory comes out, unless they were trying to capitalize on the easy publicity.
Something else worth mentioning is how obvious these celebrities are making the Illuminati to be "real". Do you think that if these celebrities were in the Illuminati, the head figures of the Illuminati would try to keep them silent? In one of Rihanna's music videos, the background says "Queen of the Illuminati" (I'm new to this website, so I don't know how to post links to photos and videos. Look it up of Google images).
Once again, wouldn't the Illuminati prohibit that from happening. Unless there is no Illuminati to prohibit it. Just a thought.
As far as the celebrities who speak out against this government control group, yes, it does make sense that the USA is controlled by an evil corporate empire. During the Great Depression, Germany was thriving because their new leader Adolf Hitler was leading them to success. The citizens of Germany thought everything was going well. They has no idea of the "concentration camps"
Also, there is evidence leaning toward the USA government killing innocent civilians who speak out, or even just random civilians. Once again, I apologize for not being able to post links, but if you type this in ("FEMA COFFINS! PROOF OF FEMA CAMP PLANS! "), you'll find a video that shows thousands of decomposable coffins that could be used to kill and bury someone without anybody noticing. Strange, right?
So yes, is there a possibility of a corrupt, controlling government? Yes. However, it is not the Illuminati. I will show you through a personal theory.
My theory is: What if the government came up with the Illuminati theory simply so the head figures (ex. Barack Obama) in this country won't be blamed for the destruction that occurs within out country? If you think about it, think about the thousands of decomposable body-bags that are located in a field in Georgia. It doesn't take much thought to understand what the government has going on there. If they kill millions of civilians and get caught, it'll be a disaster for this country. However, if the "Illuminati" who actually doesn't exist did it, than it isn't the fault of the United States. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It isn't the congress's fault. It is the fault of the "Illuminati".
Just picture it. 200 years form now, a bunch of high school kids reading their history textbooks and reading about how this Illuminati was in control of the United States and killed millions of civilians. But, our country fought back, eliminated the Illuminati who has been around thousands of years, and allowed the red, white, and blue to fly high again. Makes for quite a triumph story for a country that has killed millions of innocent people.
I'm not saying you have to believe that theory. I'm not saying that our country isn't under control. I'm just saying, that group/organization that controls the United States, based on what I have said in my last 2 arguments, is not this so called "Illuminati".
I will now offer some rebuttals to my adversaries remarks.
"Now, I understand that you think the Illuminati doesn't exist, but you're proving that they can exist. Also, I understand that you want me to prove based on actual evidence that the Illuminati doesn't not and can not exist. That's impossible. You can't prove with actual evidence that something doesn't exist. It's impossible with anything."
Then you should have worded this debate to fit so. When you claim they "do not exist", you are saying that you can prove this without a doubt. You are also taking on the BOP to show this. With the topic at hand, you are arguing a negative. Much like the concept or arguing a God. It may have been better if you said, they probably do not exist, or it is a logical assumption to conclude they do not exist. This is not the case however, you claimed they in fact do no exist. Thus the BOP is on you to demonstrate this fact. My job is to show that it is a possibility they do.
"Theory started out in 2009. All of those celebrities who are using those symbols are mostly celebrities that made it famous during or after 2009. Most of the celebrities that use those symbol started using them during of after 2009 (with the exception of Marilyn Manson and others). It doesn't make sense that all these celebrities start using these symbols RIGHT AFTER this theory comes out, unless they were trying to capitalize on the easy publicity."
This is also a theory. Literally a gap argument most would say. Because this symbol starting being used at the time the theory was shown, it is a way to capitalize on money. you are inferring this from an a + b = c argument. The issue with this is that for it to be accurate and not just an assumption, there must be iron clad facts that make up A and B. The theory itself came out at that time, but what is to say if it was not a conspiracy theory, and the Illuminati was actually formed during that time frame. Then using the same process by which you have chose to use, I could logically conclude that they are doing the sign to show that they are members of it. A(Illuminati theory came in to place) + B(sign started showing up) = C( Illuminati exist), which is the same line of logic you used to arrive at your conclusion. Thus I have demonstrated that it is a possibility, and you have just offered up a theory to support your BOP with no evidence.
"My theory is: What if the government came up with the Illuminati theory simply so the head figures (ex. Barack Obama) in this country won't be blamed for the destruction that occurs within out country? If you think about it, think about the thousands of decomposable body-bags that are located in a field in Georgia. It doesn't take much thought to understand what the government has going on there. If they kill millions of civilians and get caught, it'll be a disaster for this country. However, if the "Illuminati" who actually doesn't exist did it, than it isn't the fault of the United States. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It isn't the congress's fault. It is the fault of the "Illuminati""
This could be a working theory, but the fact is just that. It is a theory, and it is no different than saying the corrupt controlling group that is the Illuminati do in fact exist. You arrived at it using own logic and applying it to the situation. Point being is that this theory is no different than the one you are trying to disprove. It has no facts to support it, and you are using the a+b=c argument again. I have shown how that can work both ways. While it is a possibility there is not evidence to support this claim so it is irrelevant to you in your pursuit to meet your BOP.
I will now reform some of my contentions
While pro has show that it is possible that the signs we see are just a way to market money, he has provided no evidence to support this claim. With this being the case, I have shown that it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion and assume the Illuminati does not exist. Without facts to support his claim, he has not met his BOP while I have shown reasonable doubt and demonstrated that there is a possibility the do exist.
He did not even address my statement that the Illuminati itself could be a metaphor for corporate america. I even have shown some evidence and videos from people talking about this as well. So even if i were to use a=b=c in this case, the a and b are backed with evidence which strengthens my assumption. He has not addressed this at all.
My adversary has offered up multiple theories as to show why the may not exist, but this is the same logic that he is trying to disprove. He has offered up no facts to show that this origination "does not" exist. Remember his job is to show they do not exist and do so with evidence, and my job is to provide reasonable doubt. I have met my challenge, why pro still has yet to even demonstrate a remote step toward meeting his BOP.
Okay, in your "Rebuttal 1", you talk about how I haven't proved my point. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take a look at a sentence from my first post in Round 1.
"I am here to give facts, as well as logic, to prove the Illuminati doesn't control the world."
I have given both facts and logic, just like I said I would.
A fact that I gave is that the "Illuminati" name isn't even a government control group that most people think it is. I showed that it is a group that promotes women's rights and gender equality. I also showed that the Zionists and Free-masons that are supposedly aligned with the Devil and are part of the Illuminati have no affiliation with either.
The logic behind my points have been the biggest part of my argument. Let's just look at one example. Many people assume that the over-seeing eye represents the Illuminati and any celebrity who uses it is part of the Illuminati. Well I have already stated why that symbol is not part of the Illuminati. Besides, which one of these theories makes more sense.
Theory that Illuminati exists: Certain celebrities hold up signs that have no relation to Zionism and Free-masonry. Those religions/groups have no relation to devil worshipping. Devil worshipping has no relation to a potential controlling government power. But somehow, they all relate even though there is no proof, evidence, or logic behind it, and when a celebrity holds up the over seeing eye symbol, he or she is part of the Illuminati, which by the way, is a name that has nothing to do with a potential government control power.
My theory: Obviously, the over seeing eye does not relate to what the "Illuminati" supposedly is. Also, celebrities could be using those signs for publicity and more money. We see celebrities promoting things they really don't partake in anyway. For example, when Michael Phelps promotes McDonald's as the food he eats to train for the Olympics, which is most likely false considering the enormous amount of fat in their food. Just another example.
When it's all said and done, which theory makes more sense? That's what this is all about, and all signs point toward my theory being more coherent over the "Illuminati theory", which I call the "Illuminati hoax".
The same thing goes for my "A+B=C" logic. Yes, I will concur that it's what I have been using. But once again, my "A+B=C" logic makes a whole lot more sense than the "A+B=C" logic of the Illuminati theory. If my theory makes more sense, then wouldn't that mean the Illuminati most likely doesn't exist?
My theory of how the Illuminati became a theory does in fact have indirect evidence. First off, the video that I showed in my "Round 3" debate shows that the government is up to something bad and it has to do with the potential death of millions of people. With that being said, wouldn't my theory be a way to divert the attention of the citizens of the USA to something else, such as the Illuminati? Yes, my theory doesn't have cold hard facts. My theory has logic. Once again, my theory has 10000x better logic than that incoherent theory of the Illuminati.
Since you feel that I have not addressed your theory on Corporate America, I will address it directly. In "Round 3", I said "So yes, is there a possibility of a corrupt, controlling government? Yes.". So, there is a possibility that the Illuminati is in fact a metaphor for corporate America. Let me ask you this; Isn't your statement about the Illuminati being a metaphor just a "theory with no evidence"? I'll leave that up to you to decide.
In conclusion, my point is that my logic makes more sense tan the logic of the Illuminati theory. With that being said, if my logic makes more sense, wouldn't that indicate the Illuminati doesn't exist and doesn't control the world? I think so.
Okay so now lets take a look at some of my adversaries claims and rebuttals, and then I will offer my rebuttal to them along with re-framing some initial points.
He claims that he has given facts to support his theory, so lets review some of his facts.
"A fact that I gave is that the "Illuminati" name isn't even a government control group that most people think it is. I showed that it is a group that promotes women's rights and gender equality. I also showed that the Zionists and Free-masons that are supposedly aligned with the Devil and are part of the Illuminati have no affiliation with either. "
"The overseeing eye was actually used on the $1 bill to represent America's freedom, not a government control group."
"First off, with the exposure that is now on this so called "Illuminati", those celebrities definitely wouldn't be allowed to use those symbols. Secondly, and this is just a personal theory, but celebrities most likely only use those signs to generate publicity from people unwise enough to do their research on the Illuminati and come to a conclusion that it is a false theory. Yes it's negative publicity, but it's still publicity, and publicity means more money in the pocket."
All of these claims he made tie together so I will go piece by piece. He says the all seeing eye is a symbol of our freedom, but yet has provided nothing to support this other than what he has typed. Also if it is a symbol for our freedom, he would then have to explain why it shows up with people who are supposedly associated with the Illuminati. He will then claim, it is a way to market certain schemes and make money. Again this is not a fact, but a theory. He claims he has giving facts to support this but has not. He has merely indicated what he believes with his own line of logic. The premise of this debate is that the Illuminati does not exist. His BOP is to show that without a doubt. Let me tackle 3 definitions and explain how illogical some of his arguments are.
Fact- A piece of evidence presented as having objective reality. 2- the quality of being actual
Evidence - To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
Theory - a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action.
So let us look at how these 3 things work together. A fact is an objective principal. 2 + 2= 4 is a fact. A lot of birds migrate is a fact. We know these as objective truths, but how do we know this? We know this by evidence. Evidence to support these assumptions would be basic mathematical principals or videos and studies that show birds migrate. A theory is arrived at by a belief. It is a scientific assumption that something is logically possible, and then you have to show evidence to support this. Once it is proven as truth it becomes an objective reality.
So lets look at my opponents claims. The first is that the all seeing eye, was used as a symbol for freedom. This could be the case but he failed to mention every other thing engraved in the one dollar bill. Everything that could logically show that there is an Illuminati, with all the details about the colonies and figureheads on it. It even can hypothetically show the day the organization was formed. Also lets take a look at the eye. The eye itself was originally associated with a Egyptian God named Horus who was the Sun God. Also Horus itself stands for "Morning star or light bringer", which is a direct claim and name to Lucifer. So to say it has no satanic founding is not so much true. Even if it where a symbol for freedom, why pick such a controversial topic. It could be argued it represents Jesus from this perspective because Jesus and Lucifer often share some of the same Greek and Latin names. Since you like the word logic so much why pick an eye that could represent lucifer and knowing everything it stands for? That just does not add up logically. I also have shown facts to represent that it could have possible satanic foundations as well.
To demonstrate my previous points view the images below
This is eye on the dollar, and the eye associated with the Illumanti.
This is eye of Horus the Sun God.
Going back to my definitions, my adversary has not provided facts. He has cited personal opinions, or developed a theory, which is why I called his argument illogical. The same line of thought that he is using to disprove this topic can also be used to do the opposite. Saying they do not exist, and that the government is using this as a way to make money is not a fact. It is not an objective truth. It is speculation by circumstantial evidence. Thus we can label this a theory. With a theory that has no factual evidence to support it, we can also label it an opinion. Thus he has not met his BOP. I on the other hand have presented facts and sources to support my claims. While they may be labeled as theories as well, that is unavoidable in this topic. Seeing as how most of it is speculation. The difference is I have shown sources and evidence that are objective truths to ground my argument. Again I will state the case in A + B = C logic. A(the eye was Representative of a Sun God which had symbolic meaning and similarities to Lucifer) + B ( this eye was chosen and placed by our ancestors on the dollars bill knowing it was controversial) = C ( It could viably mean the Illuminati does exist and has satanic foundations). That line of thinking is backed with evidence that I have shown to be objective. His argument is this. A(personal thoughts) + B(personal thoughts) = C ( logical answer using his own subjectivity)
He states that my argument where I said it could possibly be a metaphor is a theory within itself. I stated this very obviously in my argument supporting this. I also then stated how I could arrive at this conclusion. I was making this point to show by using his logic, you could logically assume anything.
An example would be
Turtles are green.
Sammy is a turtle.
Therefore Sammy is green.
This line of thought is a fallacy, due to the fact it does not take into consideration variables that define what color turtles can be. This is the same line of thought he has approached this argument with, and the same line of thought I used to make this point. The only difference is I can account for some of the variables. I even have shown where some celebrities addressed this directly in songs and videos. Again he offers nothing but speculation.
Pro has dug his own grave in this debate. He has claimed they do not exist, and opted to argue a negative. He is then left with the BOP to prove in fact they do not exist. He must do this with providing objective evidence to support his claims. He in stead has offered nothing but speculations and thoughts.
He may have had an easier challenge if he would have made the debate " It is illogical to believe in the Illuminati" or " The Illuminati most likely does not exist", but that is not the case. He has claimed they do not exist, and must show and support this claim which he has failed to do so.
I in turn have shown how it is a distinct possibility they could exist, and even how some people have arrived at this conclusion. I have addressed everyone of his arguments, and offered a response using objective facts. Where as he has still offered nothing but personal opinions. Until he is able to show that they do not exist, using objective facts the most logical explanation is to believe that there is always a possibility that they could actually exist. Thank you.
This was one of my arguments. I didn't state that this was a fact at any point during any of my rounds, even though you indicate that I did.
Now on to my response.
You're right when you say that I haven't given any proof as to why the all seeing eye represents America's freedom. Well, here you go. Here's your proof. This was taken from an article on "LDS Freedom Forum" and refers to the "New American Era" which represents our freedom after winning the Revolutionary War, and also talks about how God looks down on humanity (which is why light shines from the eye).
"Its the All seeing eye of Providence (GOD), the "New order of the ages" represents the New American Era - This view; sees it as a good and holy symbol and the GOD is inferred here is the God of the bible and Christens. Joseph Smith had the eye painted (without Triangle) at a small party and stated that something along the lines that the true use and meaning of the symbol of the eye is of GOD, looking down on humanity.(there are a couple scriptures that use such terminology) Usually light is being shined down from the eye. Mason's use a similar eye and sometimes replace the eye with a "G". To them it is seen as good symbol that signifies, the true GOD the GREAT ARTICTECT of the Universe."
This is why it is on the dollar bill, to represent our freedom and our trust in God (former trust, that is).
Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point, but to provide statements as to why Zionism and Free-masonry isn't tied to the possible Illuminati, to provide statements as to why the Illuminati name isn't even the correct term, to prove why the over seeing eye might not and likely does not refer to the Satanist Illuminati, and to give logic (yes, I do like that word) pointing toward the conclusion that the Illuminati most likely doesn't exist.
Yes, you can be as technical as you want and say that technically because I titled this debate "The Illuminati Does Not Exist" and I only showed that it MOST LIKELY doesn't exist, and therefore, I didn't fulfill my objective. However, my objective was to show why the basic Illuminati theory is mostly nothing but a hoax, and a little research could show that it doesn't make sense.
The bottom line is; It's all about using your brain. Think about this; Does the Illuminati theory make that much sense? No. Does what I have provided in these past 4 rounds make more sense than the Illuminati theory? Yes. Case closed.
"Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point"
This is incorrect and he has almost surrendered the debate at this point. When he claims something does not exist, he must offer up concrete evidence to support it. Not provide theories with his own line of logic.
He then goes on to quote an article without citing any sources. Let us again take a look at this. He says that someone wrote an article and in it states that the eye of providence is a symbol of freedom. This is not backed by any research of his own, but rather just taking what someone else says and believing it. I have shown that in fact the eye is linked to Egyptian mythology and has ties to the name Lucifer. Even if we take this article as evidence to support his claim it is definitely not concrete. My arguments are way stronger on this topic. I have shown .org and some history sites that in fact document the eye as a Egyptian symbol with ties to Lucifer. If we are to go off strictly evidence my argument is much stronger.
He ends the debate with this quote.
" The bottom line is; It's all about using your brain. Think about this; Does the Illuminati theory make that much sense? No."
This is such an incoherent statement that it is hard to respond to. If this line of logic was accepted Christianity itself would not be accepted by 90 percent of america. Also dinosaurs would have never existed, the big bang would not have occurred, and quantum mechanics would be all semantics and not facts.
Because something makes no sense, does not mean that it could actually happen. Our universe randomly spawned with quantum fluctuations. The probability of this happening is so minuscule it is hard to comprehend but here we are. If his statements were backed by actual evidence rather than speculation , it would be a more logical argument. The only thing he has offered up is personal opinions and one article that he did not bother to research.
Pro has not fulfilled his BOP. He has offered logical reasons that align with his own perspective as to why the Illuminati may not exist. None of which is grounded with facts or evidence. In his final remarks he states, he cant not actually prove they do not exist. At this point this debate is over. He has even acknowledged he did not meet his BOP.
I on the other hand have offered valid reasons as to why they may exist. I have shown sites and sources to back my logic. I have also addressed each of his contentions and shown how some people can actually believe the Illuminati does exist. I have met my goal and undermined his arguments while making and establishing my own points.
In the end he acknowledges that he can not prove the topic he chose. The resolution has not been fulfilled and I have established a clear and logical case.
I offer this with my last words. This is his own words once again.
"Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
|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:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Kudos to Pro for his valiant attempt at his first debate here, unfortunately he found Mikhal as his opponent who adequately dismantled the arguments Pro presented and further established that Pro's burden was almost impossible to fulfil.....At times Pro even admits it's impossible to prove the illuminati do not exist, but begins by saying he can provide facts and logical arguments to prove the illuminati doesn't, this is where Con demands Pro fulfil his burden, which as Pro point's out. It's impossible. and the resorts to arguments from logic, which Con rightly points out that isn't enough to claim they do not exist...I give arguments to Con, and sources also to Con, conduct is tied and see no reason why the other voters awarded Conduct to Con. so I will counter the conduct point.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
|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 was more professional in his arguments. He used bold titles and neat picture layouts. Con also used sources. I also noticed that Pro made an argument from probability, such as "What if the government came up with the Illuminati theory simply so the head figures (ex. Barack Obama) in this country won't be blamed for the destruction that occurs within out country? If you think about it, think about the thousands of decomposable body-bags that are located in a field in Georgia. It doesn't take much thought to understand what the government has going on there. If they kill millions of civilians and get caught, it'll be a disaster for this country. However, if the "Illuminati" who actually doesn't exist did it, than it isn't the fault of the United States. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It isn't the congress's fault. It is the fault of the "Illuminati"." Not really convincing. The "what if" part was weak.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.