The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Illuminati no longer exists, and the rumours about the Illuminati are false.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,069 times Debate No: 59473
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Conspiracy theorists often assert that the Illuminati is evil, anti-Christian, trying to hide their symbol(s) in pop culture today, controls everyone in pop culture and media, or any combination of the above. As the Instigator, I am going to attempt to debunk these ideas. I believe the proposition that the rumours about the Illuminati are false, and the Illuminati no longer even exists.

The Illuminati was formed in 1776, by Adam Weishaupt. Historians refer to the Illuminati that existed at the time as the Bavarian Illuminati. However, they permanently disbanded in 1785. A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that they actually survived, and continue as a group today. However, there is no evidence to support this claim, so we can safely assume that the Illuminati no longer exists.

In addition, the Bavarian Illuminati was a group of freethinkers, who were against superstition and prejudice. They supported the separation of church and state, and gender equality. If the modern Illuminati is a continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati, then presumably, they would hold the same ideas. Using this logic, we can conclude that the modern Illuminati would also support equality, oppose prejudice, etc. This debunks claims that the Illuminati is evil.

I will use my other arguments in later rounds. I welcome you to challenge my proposition and debate me.


The Illuminati was formed early in human's evolution from apes, as
a way for the highest members of certain groups to be combined under
a certain principle with others.
If an Illuminati still exists therefore,the only way of knowing would be that the members
of certain groups would all support the same opinions.
An Illuminati could be completely widespread and we would barely know it.

By saying the Illuminati doesn't exist you are only vindicating of how they could potentially exist,therefore they may exist.
Whether the Illuminati exists or does not exist claiming that they do not and that the rumors about there whereabouts are false, you are displaying very characteristic signs of being in the Illuminati. By being in the Illuminati you must therefore be trying to conceal the truth which could mean that the Illuminati does exist.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to point out that my opponent didn't respond to my argument that the Illuminati was not evil, and therefore would not be evil if it existed today.

My opponent starts out their argument with a link to the definitions of Illuminati posted on Urban Dictionary. Urban Dictionary is not a scholarly dictionary, so it is not a credible source to be used in debates.

My opponent then states that "the Illuminati was formed early in human's evolution from apes", which is a blatant falsehood. The Illuminati was formed in 1776, and humans first appeared long before that.

My opponent also asserts that the only way of knowing if the Illuminati exists is if certain people of certain groups have the same opinions. But just because some associated people have similar opinions does not mean they are part of the Illuminati. Even with society, including everyday people who aren't famous, you could find many people who share opinions. That doesn't mean that they're part of the Illuminati. It's special pleading to use that logic for certain people but not others.

My opponent finally argues that, by making the assertion that there is no Illuminati, I am only clearing suspicion of me, therefore, it's possible that the Illuminati exists. I am not trying to clear suspicion of me. The conspiracy theorists are the ones who made the claim that the Illuminati still exists, so i am merely responding to that claim. My opponent also argues that I may be a part of the Illuminati, because I am trying to make it seem like they don't exist. However, I can use the same refutation that I used just before: conspiracy theorists made the claim about the Illuminati, so I am making a response.

And now, I am going to make a point that I did not get to in Round 1.

A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the Illuminati is trying to hide their symbol(s) in pop culture today. This symbol is usually said to be the All-Seeing Eye, which is a symbol that is often varied, but usually a triangle with an eye in it. However, I argue that it would be absurd to suggest that, because seeing an All-Seeing Eye in the background of some TV show can not be effective. Even if the symbol did somehow influence society, the people who saw the symbol would need to know about the Illuminati, be influenced by it, connect it to the Illuminati, and then join the Illuminati. That would be extremely difficult to pull off, so why would the Illuminati do it?

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge, and I await my opponent's rebuttals.


I do not indeed claim that the Illuminati is evil since I find it irrelevant whether they are or are not.
The word Illuminati means enlightened in Latin.Even though there are claims that the Illuminati has
been banned their is no physical way of knowing that their is no secret society trying to
create one allied government.

Here is where your wrong my opponent, the Illuminati movement was indeed founded in 1776 by Weishpeit but the Illuminati dates back many centuries before that when secret societies were made to head large political positions.

While you are correct in the assumption that not every person is in the Illuminati, however my claim is not that everyone is actually in the Illuminati but instead that the Illuminati are a group of people everywhere in the same mindset.
In most generations their have been political representatives that
have tried to estate distrust in the people over the government and centralize government.
Is it possible that the Illuminati exists? Yes.

And now i'm gonna smack down the opponents new point.

The seeing eye is a metaphor of there bring a group of people watching for the wrongdoings of the citizens.
The Illuminati could have many different symbols and for all we know the seeing eye is just a fake symbol made up to disguise the real symbol.
By showing off the Illuminati symbol they are providing people with incentive in the government to
learn about the eye therefore it is influencing them.
Symbols like these are only minor ways of recruiting,anyoway.
The modern Illuminati could possibly even be incited by anarchy for all I know, oh and
the Illuminati is a secret society ,that's why they'd do it, to answer that question.
Thank you competitor.
Debate Round No. 2


I respect my opponent for acknowledging that the Illuminati is not necessarily evil. Since my opponent acknowledges this, I will no longer discuss it in the debate unless necessary.

My opponent has still not responded to my criticism of them using Urban Dictionary as a source.

I will look more into the issue of the Illuminati having existed early than 1776 later, and discuss it in later rounds.

Finally, my opponent claims that the Illuminati is broadcasting its symbol (the All-Seeing Eye) so that people who notice it will be curious, research it, and eventually join the Illuminati. However, I dispute this. I ask why the Illuminati would make its use of the symbol subtle rather than obvious. If they made it obvious, then it would attract more potential members, so that would seem like the logical thing to do.

Sorry for the short arguments, it's just that there's not much to discuss right now.

I welcome my opponent's refutations and counter-arguments.


Sorry for the late response.

I will respond to your criticism of my use of Urban dictionary in two ways.
1. This definition is generally and most commonly the same in all definition sites like Dictionary and Merriam-Webster.
2. Unlike you I have used 4 different links while you have none is my response criticism.

Now I shall respond to my competitors other claim: Why ^would^ the Illuminati would make its use of the symbol subtle rather than obvious. If they made it obvious, then it would attract more potential members, so that would seem like the logical thing to do.

The group know as the Illuminati's goal is not to get as many members as possible but to instead
find as many willing members with the same opinions.
Many of the Illuminati symbols like the eye are often even copied onto TV shows just as a
jokes not knowing that it may attract members.
The fact of the matter is that the Illuminati is a lot more secret than this and it is simply unlikely that
all of these supposed Illuminati symbols are actually meant to recruit members.
Now that TV's and radio's are very popular it's a lot harder for the Illuminati to exist now, except for in poorer countries.
Fundamentally the Illuminati may have made symbols like the eye to attract members but now it has become a joke and it is possible that because of this, other less obvious symbols are being ignored.
In conclusion it is getting much harder to be in the Illuminati but it's also likely become more exclusive and well, hidden.
Oh and here's a bunch of coincidences.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent asserts that the definition for "Illuminati" on Urban Dictionary is more or less the same as on, but this is false. On, there are 2 definitions (
1. persons possessing, or claiming to possess, superior enlightenment. NOTE: This is a vague definition, so the 2nd definition is more likely to refer to the group my opponent and I are discussing in this debate.
2. (initial capital letter) a name given to different religious societies or sects because of their claim to superior enlightenment.

Contrast this with the first definition on Urban Dictionary (
"the Illuminati is a secret orginazation [sic] of the most powerful and influential elite in the world.They go back for centuries and maintain the same bloodlines.They set up the council on forign [sic] relations,the bilderberg group and the tri-laterial [sic] commission.those 3 groups all meet to plan the fate of the world." You can read the rest of said definition at the link I have used.

There is little similarity between the definitions on (the 2nd definition, more precisely), and the first definition on Urban Dictionary. (This also goes for the other Urban Dictionary definitions.)

I have nothing else to say currently, so I welcome my opponent's rebuttals.


Burningsnow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I have nothing to respond to at the moment since my opponent forfeited this round, so I have nothing to say.


I'm sorry for missing a round because of some other stuff I needed to do, but my opponent has misconcieved me as forfeiting this round which I simply will not do.
Since my opponent has not written any final statemants I will rebuttal him as well as write my final statement.


As secret societies go, the Illumanati is probably the most famous one their is and
as myths of the illumanati have come and gone, the obvious apparent goal of the Ilumanati
is to stay secret and handpick their members. The misconception that you have is that
the Illumanati want to be clearly noticed,which they don't.

If the Illumanati's goal is to create a new world order or such as the Bavarian
Illumanati who wanted to institute their rules into goverment. They would need to be secretive since when the
Bavarian rulers discovered that the Illumanati existed
they were
banned by Karl Theodor in 1777.

So why would the modern illumanati want to get clearly noticed?
This is why all these symbols have been popping up,because they're trying to be subtle in their recruitment.

Final statement

In all honesty their is little concrete evidence that the illumanati does exist and little concrete evidence that it does not, except for all the markings and symbols. However I ask,isn't that simply
part of the Illumanati's goal to be secretive and subtle?
Just like in the Bavarian Illumanati, the public would call for their impeachment if they knew of the
whereabouts of such a group.
I will finish my statement there so you can decide whether their is the slightest possiblity that
the illumanati may exist.

And to respond to your outrageous claim about Urban dictionary, I will claim that on every site you will find
close to the same definition with plenty of similarities .
What I find rather funny though is that you have no sources to speak of, however you can still comment on my sources.

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SirMaximus 3 years ago
Eh, I'll just challenge you now. Why not? (Just an FYI: I'll probably use, more or less, the same arguments I used in this debate.)
Posted by SirMaximus 3 years ago
@Wylted: I'll challenge you when the voting period is over. Deal? If not, I'll be happy to challenge you during the voting period, I'd just prefer it be after the voting period.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Your opponent sucks. Challenge me when this is done.
Posted by SirMaximus 3 years ago
@Blade-of-Truth: Thank you for supporting me, Blade Of Truth. :)
@Wylted: As for your first comment, that's an interesting assertion, and I will further research it. Thank you for your comment. As for your second comment, will do.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
If this debate ends up going nowhere, challenge me.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
They still exist. The illuminati was eradicated in Bavaria, but shortly after migrated to America and his themselves amongst and within other secret societies. I'd go into more detail, but I don't want to give your opponent an advantage.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Finally, someone who actually looks at the real history instead of falling victim to this silly conspiracy. Godspeed to you sir.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and reliable resources go to con. After reading the Urban Dictionary definition over the Miriam definition, I found that the Urban dictionary def. more accurately described the Illuminati as it relates to the debate. The Argument against the source was ad vericundium, and ad hominem against con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. As to arguments, Con's was full of supposition and assertion without any basis in real evidence. Pro gave solid justification why the Illuminati can be said to no longer exist. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.