The Instigator
SirMaximus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

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

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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 60035
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

SirMaximus

Pro

At Wylted's request, I challenge him to this debate. (NOTE: I already debated this against Burningsnow. As of writing, the debate with Burningsnow is in the voting period.)

(The following text is taken almost verbatim from my old debate. I may or may not paraphrase more loosely as the rounds go on, depending on how this goes.)

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 challenge Wylted to debate me, at his request.
Wylted

Con

My opponent is arguing 2 things in this debate.

1. The illuminati no longer exist.

2. Rumors about the illuminati aren't true.

If he proves one but fails to prove the other he loses. I will not attempt to prove the illuminati exists in this debate. I will merely show that there is a reasonable chance that the group still exists. If there is a reasonable chance they still exist to this day I should win the debate.

The second point my opponent is arguing is that the illuminati doesn't control the world. I'll attempt to show that a handful of people from the illuminati do in fact rule the world. Remember my opponent must prove 2 things in this debate.

My opponent didn't really make any arguments yet, so I'll refrain as well. I'll give a brief overview of what I'll be arguing like he did.

I'm going to show that the illuminati has in fact not been abolished, but have merely went underground. They migrated to America and formed the skull and bones society which still exists to this day.

On top of that. I'll show that the members I the skull and bones society does control much of the world.

I'll also briefly discuss other places that the skull and bones society went underground.

I wish pro good luck and look forward to his opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
SirMaximus

Pro

While I can't prove 100% that the Illuminati doesn't exist, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist, I will do my best to make a case against the Illuminati's existence. I will also attempt to debunk the rumours about the Illuminati.

My opponent believes that the Illuminati was not abolished but merely went underground. However, if they still exist and rule the world, I argue that there would almost certainly be some noticeable signs of their existence. You'd expect an organization that rules the world to leave some signs of their ruling the world. My opponent will probably argue that there are signs of their existence, so if and when my opponent does, I will attempt to debunk those arguments.

As Pro, I will also attempt to debunk common rumours about the Illuminati. I will not attempt to debunk all of them in this round; I will also use later rounds. For now, I will attempt to debunk the claim that the Illuminati is evil. My opponent believes that the modern Illuminati is a continuation of the original Bavarian Illuminati, as my opponent believes that the original Bavarian Illuminati survived and continues to live today. However, to reiterate what I asserted in Round 1, the Bavarian Illuminati was not evil. They supported gender equality, and opposed superstition and prejudice. If the modern Illuminati is the same group as the original Illuminati that supposedly survived and went underground, then it would seem logical that they would hold the same views as the original Illuminati. Are supporting gender equality and opposing superstition and prejudice really evil, as conspiracy theorists often claim?

I welcome my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
Wylted

Con

INTRODUCTION

Pro has failed to make any real arguments in round 1 or 2. He is merely asserting facts, without providing premises or citations. I could just as easily do the same thing and still win this debate, but I won't.

THE ILLUMINATI

The Bavarian Illuminati was formed in 1776 and held the ideals of freedom of the mind from superstition as well as the ideals of natural freedom. When rumors of their plot to infiltrate and overthrow the government were discovered, they were outlawed. [1]

The goal of the Illuminati as already stated was to free the world. It was clear that their number was up and they were about to have the government and Church of Rome come down hard on them. They quickly formed and infiltrated several secret societies.

FREEMASONRY

In 1777 the founder of the illuminati Weishaupt, managed to infiltrate freemasonry and implement his occult and esoteric ideals at the highest levels.[2]

The infiltration into freemasonry was made complete when Baron Adolf Franz Friederich Knigge, a high ranking mason was initiated into the order of the illuminati. [3]

Here is a chart showing Baron Adolf Franz Friederich Knigge's plans using the Freemasons as part of the illuminati.

http://www.debate.org...

Between the illuminati's infiltration of Freemasonry in 1777 and it being outlawed in 1788, it had plenty of time to spread across Europe. You can see proof the illuminati, survived past the time when my opponent thinks it was destroyed because they had their hands in the French Revolution.

FRENCH REVOLUTION

There is a lot of evidence that the Illuminati spread it's ideals through the American revolution, but for the purposes of this debate, I'll focus on showing their hand in the French Revolution.

The official document of the declaration of human rights has many occult symbols from hermeticism, masonry and the illuminati. The most notable illuminati symbol on it is the red phrygian cap underneath the Ouroboros. You can also see the all seeing eye as well as too may other things to dive into.[4]

http://www.debate.org...

Leopold Hoffman a powerful member of the Freemasons Exposed the infiltration of the masonry and the Illuminati's hands in the French Revolution. He did this in his journal Wiener Zeitschrift. He wasn't the only Mason to uncover this infiltration.

In 1797 John Robinson and inventor, mathematician and doctor got upset when discovering the Illuminati's infiltration of his beloved Masonry exposed them in his book "Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies".

THE ILLUMINATI IN AMERICA

In 1799 German minister G.W. Snyder, warned George Washington that the Illuminati has infiltrated the American Freemason lodges. Initially George Washington responded with doubts. However, Washington being a prominent member of society and a Freemason, decided to do his own research.

After some time and research Washington wrote a letter to Snyder concluding that the Illuminati have in fact infiltrated Masonic lodges.[5]

There is no reason to think that the Illuminati has disappeared without any resistance in America whatsoever. They use these secret societies to recruit and hide their even more influential secret society. They've done this for centuries and will continue to do so.

SKULL AND BONES SOCIETY

The Skull and Bones Society is a fraternity at Yale university.[6] They are the center of the American wing of the Illuminati and have such notable members such as John Kerry, both George Bush's, various CIA agents, religious leaders and other highly influential politicians.[6]

In 1876 a group of Yale students broke into the famous Skull and Bones tomb. They documented a bunch of German writing as well as rituals that resemble what took place within the Bavarian illuminati. Next round I'll dive into the matrix of control the Illuminati possesses as well as elaborating on these arguments.[7]

sources
[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] Manly P. Hall, Masonic Orders of Fraternity
[3] ibid
[4] John Robinson, Proofs of a Conspiracy
[5] Wasserman, op.
[6] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.markdice.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SirMaximus

Pro

Unfortunately, I am very busy today, and do not have time to respond to my opponent's arguments. To compensate, I will go more in-depth into my arguments in the next round, and I welcome my opponent to make further arguments in response to this round, if my opponent so wishes.
Wylted

Con

I'm not really going to expand on my arguments here too much. This probably should be a 4 round debate anyway, also admittedly I'm a little lazy. I will say my opponent can't just state facts without citing them. We have no reason to take his word for anything he said.

I also will state that my opponent at least has some burden of proof here. I'll leave it up to the judges to decide how much, but rest assured he has some, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

To summarize my last round. I've shown that the iIluminati likely survived long after the Bavarian government cracked down on them. I've also shown that a lot of the Skull and Bones' society initiation rites as well as other things I the "tomb", would lead people to think a likely connection to the original Bavarian illuminati exists.

The illuminati is a secret society who hides it's very existence and by it's nature is hard to pin down. However, I've given plenty of reason to think it still exists until this day.

I wish good luck to my opponent in this upcoming round.
Debate Round No. 3
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent asserts that the All-Seeing Eye is an Illuminati symbol, but I argue that this is actually a common misconception. The All-Seeing Eye represents God,[1] and the Illuminati was actually founded as a group of freethinkers, going against the Catholic church.[2] If they were founded as a secular organization, then why would they use a religious symbol?

Secondly, my opponent uses markdice.com as a source, and since it is not a .edu or a .org site, it may not be very reliable, so we have no reason to believe my opponent on his claims drawn from markdice.com. My opponent also uses Wikipedia, which is reliable (I myself am actually using it in this debate), but using Wikipedia's article on the Skull and Bones society to support his arguments is weak at best for my opponent. The section about conspiracy theories (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones#Conspiracy_theories) says nothing for or against the validity of the conspiracy theories, and even what it does say about what people claim has a "Citation needed" next to it.

In short, I argue that the All-Seeing Eye has nothing to do with the Illuminati, and the Skull and Bones society has no ties to the Illuminati.

[1] wikipedia.org/wiki/All-seeing_eye
[2] wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
Wylted

Con

WIKIPEDIA

My opponent actually uses Wikipedia for some claims that fall outside the realm of common knowledge. The way I use Wikipedia is to cite material that really isn't debatable. Let's examine how I used it.

"The Bavarian Illuminati was formed in 1776 and held the ideals of freedom of the mind from superstition as well as the ideals of natural freedom. When rumors of their plot to infiltrate and overthrow the government were discovered, they were outlawed. [1]"

This is my first use of Wikipedia. This is a rewording of what my opponent was has already said in round 1 and 2. If my opponent isn't disputing the information than why is he concerned about the source?

Pro, we both agree here. Do I really need to cite something more credible for a fact we both agree with?

My other use of Wikipedia was to cite the location of the skulls and bones society. The location of the skull and bones society isn't even a premise for 1 of my arguments. It's also common knowledge that the skull and bones society is located at Yale and contains the brightest minds in the country.

Just in case my opponent is still skeptical that the Skull and Bones society is located at Yale, I urge him to take a look at my first citation this round which is a .edu site. [1]

THE ORDER OF THE FILE AND CLAW

The documents of this order are in fact real despite my opponent's skepticism, and have been reproduced in their entirety so that anybody can view them whenever they want.[2]

When they group broke in they found all kinds of German writing and even how the group dates their materials would indicate that they are the resurrected illuminati.

The skull and cross bones is German and known as the Totenkopf.[3]

"Bones is a chapter of a corps in a German University.... General Russell, its founder, was in Germany before his Senior Year and formed a warm friendship with a leading member of a German society. He brought back with him to college, authority to found a chapter here."[4]

various responses

"My opponent asserts that the All-Seeing Eye is an Illuminati symbol, but I argue that this is actually a common misconception. The All-Seeing Eye represents God,[1] and the Illuminati was actually founded as a group of freethinkers, going against the Catholic church.[2] If they were founded as a secular organization, then why would they use a religious symbol?"

My opponent's quote is in response to my following round 2 statement;

"The official document of the declaration of human rights has many occult symbols from hermeticism, masonry and the illuminati. The most notable illuminati symbol on it is the red phrygian cap underneath the Ouroboros. You can also see the all seeing eye as well as too may other things to dive into"

So he completely ignores the other symbols I brought up. The Illuminati did use religious symbols and it probably wasn't to convey any sort of religious ideals. One of the most common symbols you see them use and is found on documents seized by the Bavarian government is the owl of Minerva.[5]Also known as the owl of Athena, the goddess of knowledge.[6]

Specifically in reference to he all seeing eye, a lot of evidence exists that they used that as well. In Zwack's deist essay confiscated from the Illuminati entitled "Better Than Horus" there is references to Horus (obviously).[7]

The all seeing eye was originally referred to as the Eye of Horus in Egyptian mythology[8] and the symbol was probably used as a reminder of the principals mentioned in "Better Than Horus". So my opponent's assumptions that the Illuminati wouldn't use symbolism derived from religions is completely false'

CONCLUSION

My opponent has dropped almost every single argument I've made. Please vote con.

sources
[1] http://www.yale.edu...
[2] http://www.american-buddha.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (1983, 1986, 2002)
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.scribd.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
SirMaximus

Pro

Unfortunately, I'm busy again and can't respond to this. Honestly, I wouldn't be too surprised if Con wins. So, yeah, Con is probably going to win. I admit that. Good luck to Con in the final round.
Wylted

Con

Vote con, pro fails to uphold resolution, offers no rebuttals and doesn't offer citations for the random facts he throws out.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SirMaximus 2 years ago
SirMaximus
Good advice, thanks! Also, I didn't consider the bit about the "small handful of men" thing. Interesting idea!
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
On another note. I do believe Yale's skull and bones society has roots in Germany and that the Illuminati survived well after the Bavarian government outlawed them.

This is unconnected, but I believe a small handful of men rule the world also, who probably are in no way connected to the Bacarian Illuminati. I think conspiracy researchers acknowledge this and just refer to the handful of the men as illuminati just to give the men some sort of name.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thanks. You just need to do a few things.

1. Make your resolutions more clear.

2. Cite your facts (ones outside of common knowledge).

3. Attack your opponents arguments. (Don't run from them)

4. Make sure every round expands your arguments and supports them. Every round the audience should learn something new.
Posted by SirMaximus 2 years ago
SirMaximus
In all honesty, I believe that Wylted deserves to win. He had stronger arguments. He didn't convince me, but he argued his points well. Congratulations, Wylted. In my mind, you won, and your probably will in the minds of the voters. Good job.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I thought you'd appreciate that.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Props on using Markdice.com as a source. That was great, lol :)
Posted by SirMaximus 2 years ago
SirMaximus
Ah.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I know. I'm just teazing you.
Posted by SirMaximus 2 years ago
SirMaximus
@Wylted: I wanted to give my voters as much time as possible to vote so we can get as many votes as possible.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
30 day voting period, WTF!!!!!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SirMaximusWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to uphold the resolution and argue half the debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SirMaximusWyltedTied
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: ff causes him unable to rebut Wylted and fall short at fulfilling BoP
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
SirMaximusWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited two rounds. Although he gave reason, it is still unacceptable conduct to do it twice. Either plan your schedule more responsibly, or don't partake in debates where conduct is worth points. S&G - Tie. Neither gave reason to award or negate points. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to uphold his BOP. This was done by his neglect to provide rebuttals to Con's counter-arguments in several rounds. Con also failed to provide evidence for several of his arguments. Considering the dropped arguments and unproven claims, these points are solidly given to Con. Sources - Con. While both utilized sources in this debate, Con's were of greater quantity and quality. It was amusing that he met Pro's challenge for respectable sources by using .edu/.org's in his final round. Challenge met fully by Con. I will caution Con though, because I didn't like how some of his sources were just book titles... like, okay - let me go get this book and search for that specific text... Get it?
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
SirMaximusWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: When Pro forfeited a round, it was formally, so there is no deduction of conduct points. Spelling and grammar were both legible. Con used many sources in backing his own points, and his points went unrefuted. Therefore, 5 points to Con.