Okay, let's start this bad boy off by saying that you are already wrong. The Illuminati, as we all know, is watching our each and every movement. Their ultimate reign is coming. It's inevitable. And who, might you ask, is leading this elite force of unstoppable "evil doers"? Why, it can only be the only sensible option out there: the sentient cows of Canada! Many make fallacious claims such as, "But how can one organization be run by some soon-to-be hamburgers?" These ignorant people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about because they're hypocrites who only want some more fattening hamburgers to fill themselves with because they gain pleasure from being incredibly fat. Illuminati expert, Austin Cummings, exclaimed that "Cows are our superiors and are much more intelligent than most humans and should be treated with such respect and because our lack of respect for them they have devised a group called the Illuminati and one that is parallel to that what was created in 1774. Their Illuminatious influence is present in everyday lives their evil subjects named vegans have tried to take over the world but have been suppressed" This accurate statement now proves this already know fact true because this perfectly credible source says so.
Before beginning I would like to thank the pro for inviting me to this debate and wish him the best of luck. Although I am not a strong believer of the illuminati, in this debate I will be arguing that it would make much more sense for an organization of the caliber to be run by homosapiens rather than cows. I will close out this round with a few charts that will assist in the point I am attempting to make.
Ok, that last round... that didn't happen. As for the debate, all of those points previously stated were invalid and let me tell you why. You said, and I quote, "I will close out this round with a few charts that will assist in the point I am attempting to make." Simply put, you are not sure of yourself. You claim to be "attempting" to prove something true rather than than asserting it to be true. This is a critical debating error, I would know as I am a master debater. Nevertheless, this uncertainty of your "facts" brings down your argument validity down to a zero whereas nobody will believe that you are even "attempting" to persuade them. Because here in America, if you don't believe in yourself, then you will never accomplish your wildest dreams. The dreams your childhood was made of. The dreams wish for on your birthdays. The dreams that will be the downfall of your sanity if you don't spend the rest of your life chasing them down and living them out as you wonder what the real meaning of them are. Because in reality, life is only a temporary state of consciousness until we all die out in painful deaths filled with grief and despair. But please, enjoy Arby's™.
And here is a chart that assertively illustrates why you are wrong, thank you for time.
The pro began the last round by saying that I am unsure of myself. I have a question for you pro, did I once say that i'm not sure of myself? Just to be clear I didn't. The statement "I am attempting to make" does not imply self-doubt, but is rather my way of saying "let me show you why i'm right". The pro then went on to mention things such the American dream (which is dead but that's an entirely different debate topic), Arbys, and then topped it all off with an opinionated graph about people liking bacon. The pro's entire 3rd round argument was filled with fallacious/irrelevant remarks, and did not help him in any way. The pro has left me with nothing to counter, so I have nothing more to offer to this debate. So to conclude I would once again like to thank the pro for inviting me to this debate, and wish him the best of luck.
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Illuminati is run by cows of Canada. However, he failed to prove that the Canadian Illuminati cows are all-knowing sentient cows, which the debate resolution suggests. He has therefore fallen short of his burden of proof, and arguments therefore have to go to con. I do award conduct points to Pro though since con attempted to use logical sources in a debate, which is very frowned upon here on DDO
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments that the cow Illuminati exists in Canada exists (warranted by Austin Cummings) were never refuted in an actual way. This means that any dropped arguments should be held at the weight that they were given. Con's argument that it is improbable that cows can be old enough to join the illuminati was never refuted.
So when weighing the impacts, it's a "it definitely exists" versus a "it probably doesn't exist" argument analysis. The bigger impact is "it definitely exists" thus I vote pro.
As for conduct, pro forfeited a round, so conduct to con.
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.