The Lizard Illuminati is false
Debate Rounds (4)
Lizard Illuminati: Also known as the Reptilians, these (humanoid) reptiles have the ability to shape shift into a human form, and are "mind controlling" us into believing they don't exist. They are also said to be ruling us. This conspiracy started from David Icke.
False: Not true; doesn't exist
Exist: To have objective reality or being
Round 1: Con may state his/her case, and begin arguments.
Round 2: Pro will begin arguments, and Con will refute, and may give new arguments.
Round 3: Pro and Con will refute each other's arguments, and defend their own.
Round 4: Final rebuttals and conclusions. No new arguments in this round.
1. No trolling, or semantics.
2. Kritiks can be used as a last resort if Con can't find any evidence. (I may regret this, though)
3. Forfeiting a round, especially round 4, will count as an automatic loss.
4. Violation of these rules will count as an automatic loss.
And with that, who accepts?
[Note: You must have at least 3 completed debates to enter.]
Point 1; Lack of evidence of the Reptilians
This is pretty straight forward. There isn't anything suggesting these beings exist. Con must show some form of proof that we're being ruled by the Lizard Illuminati.
Point 2; How come we're not enslaved right now?
According to David Icke, the Reptilians (referred to as "Anunnaki in my link) have started breeding with human females 200,000 - 300,000 years ago, with Adam being the first one [https://en.wikipedia.org...] So how come we aren't already enslaved, or at least the majority of Earth's population being the Reptilians?
And with that, let's hear Con's argument!
Zerubavel claims that reality is a continuum and the way that we cut it up is what meaning we make out of it. Therefore, reality is in a sense subjective, in that it can take many forms, all being components of the bigger picture. This means, in extension, that truth is a subjective component of the unattainable continuum that is Reality.
My arguments will be based around Zerubavel's claim and my extensions to it; lizard people subjectively are alive within the nation.
P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith.
P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith.
C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have)
Therefore, Lizard people exist! This is the only proof I need.
Now, onto pro's case.
C1. Lack of evidence
A lack of evidence doesn't lead to an evidence of lack ... put another way, just because there is no direct evidence of existence doesn't mean there cannot be any.
I will ask Obama next time I see him, as he is a Lizard. I do not know why we aren't enslaved, but that isn't a reason that lizard people don't exist.
The flaw with the Social Lens (as evidence or the Lizard Illuminati);
"P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith.
P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith.
C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have)"
So what your saying is that if you strongly believe in something, that something is true. However, you can't just begin to strongly believe in something. It doesn't work. You need evidence, like David Icke supposedly had.
P1: To believe in something, you need evidence.
P2: David Icke strongly believes in the Lizard Illuminati.
C1: Therefore, David must've had evidence.
If David had no evidence, then we'd just say he was joking. However, he could have just been misguided. What then? If you were misdirected into thinking something exists (Like Santa Claus), would that something still exist? And would that something just disappear from existence once you stop believing?
Disproving the Social Lens as reliable;
I would also like to show the internal flaw in the Social Lens. At the time of Christopher Columbus, the people thought the Earth was flat. If the Social Lens is true, then the people would be correct and the Earth is flat. However, the Earth is round, and Christopher Columbus disproved this by discovering America.
Also, what if two people strongly believe in different sides of something, such as gun control? One thinks gun control is good, while the other thinks it's bad. Which is it, then? If this doesn't concern the Social Lens, I would like to know why.
Point 1; Lack of evidence
Like I've pointed out in my rebuttal, you can't believe in something without knowledge of it. In order to have knowledge of the Lizard Illuminati, you need evidence. The Social Lens can't work if you don't have the evidence needed to believe in it. Since David Icke believed in the conspiracy, and was the one who created it, there must be proof. Thus, I ask Con to provide some.
Point 2; Enslavement
If the conspiracy is true, then we should be enslaved. Don't they do rituals and breeding? This should give them the strength and numbers they need to take over, which they haven't done. If they haven't done this yet, despite supposedly space travel and going through dimensions, then it's doubtful they exist.
With that, I hand it over to Con.
Brief roadmap: defense of the affirmative's rebuttal against me, some attacks on their defense argument, consolidated voting issues.
My opponent simply doesn't understand my case. Any belief, I claim and Zerubavel claims, is inherently true if it is made within a good enough faith-claim. Baudrillard gives the example, in his book Simulacra and Simulation, of an Italian bomber in the streets. All beliefs -- from it being left wing reformists, right wing reactionaries, centrist seat-takers, a police state -- all of these are actors in the bombing, since people believe in these things within their own good faith.
Evidence is not needed to make a decision. I have no evidence to know that I will not die in the next minute, but I know that this is true -- how? Analytical truth-finding of a good faith-based claim makes you see the ultimate reality of something (cue Zizek's distinction of the Real and reality, I won't get into that, but if you are interested read Violence by Zizek!).
David Icke, he and I both claim, made his claim within good faith. He had seen and conspired of what is true, and as my author's claim unrefutedly, made them true! His conspiracy theory is a good faith-based claim based on past ideas and so on ... so it must be at least somewhat true.
Your Christopher Columbus example is not useful to this debate at all. One: it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat (source: hundreds of anthropologists). Two: the Earth is both flat and round -- those that had the belief that the Earth is flat were correct! Those that thought it was round were correct! There exists a logical barrier that stops us from seeing that these can be dually true, but light is both a particle and a wave (some claim) and that violates our intuitions ... does that make it any less true?
Attack on Defense
My opponent clings to his evidence-necessary argument. I provide you evidence that it is true that there exist illuminati lizards -- the resolution should vote my way if there are both lizards and not lizards, as just part of that analysis is necessary to negate.
Then he says if the conspiracy is true then we must be enslaved. I am not a lizard (I claim, you may prove me wrong) so I don't know why we aren't enslaved. Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it will (see: human extinction). They are ruling over us, I claim and David Icke claims, but they are not enslaving us (or are they? Make a faith-based claim in earnest and it will become true)
Burdens - the burdens were never specifically stated, so we must see that (as default) the burden is shared between the aff and the neg. If the neg wins more impactful arguments than the aff, vote neg -- if the aff doesn't have any arguments outweighing the neg, don't give arguments to either. Normative resolution.
Arguments - my opponent has none that actually prove the resolution to be true. He keeps making this fallacious argument that because we haven't seen it means it cannot ever be true, and then saying that we aren't enslaved so we never can be in the future. Don't grant him access to these arguments, as I have shown, human extinction hasn't happened, that doesn't mean it won't or that it isn't on its course, and so on.
My arguments say that lizard people are necessarily true, as Icke's argument is made within good faith and within his own reasoning. There isn't a reason to see that they can't exist - my opponent just gives the Columbus example when that isn't even a means to disprove the Social Lens, it's just a means of attacking our intuition. And as I have shown, our intuitions are not always correct. I have some arguments left, they have none -- default neg.
The need for evidence;
"David Icke, he and I both claim, made his claim within good faith." So if you don't have any evidence, then how do you make a claim within good faith? If something is true, then there must be evidence of it. You can't just say "Pink unicorns exist!", and they exist. You need evidence to make a claim. So why does David Icke believe in the Reptilians? He needs evidence.
"His conspiracy theory is a good faith-based claim based on past ideas and so on ... so it must be at least somewhat true." He based it off of past ideas indeed. The question is, though: are these past ideas sufficient evidence? Again, Lack of evidence is lack of belief. And according to the social lens, lack of belief is lack of existence of that something you don't believe.
Disproving the Social Lens;
"Your Christopher Columbus example is not useful to this debate at all. One: it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat" Mainstream is basically, the majority. The majority of people believe the Lizard Illuminati is false, so does this mean it's false? Let's take a look at Con's 2nd point on the matter;
"Two: the Earth is both flat and round -- those that had the belief that the Earth is flat were correct! Those that thought it was round were correct!" So what your saying is if I believe something to be correct, it is correct? We seem to be at an impasse.
Point 3: Does the Reptilian clan exist?
My Christopher Columbus example was relevant, since people believed two different realities (flat earth and round earth). In this debate, we're discussing different realities (one with the Reptilians [Con], and one without the Reptilians [Pro]). Con says the Earth is both round and flat, because of the Social Lens. This means because I believe the Reptilians don't exist, that means it should be true. However, because Con believes the Lizards exist, that is true. Which reality do we live in?
Recall what Con said "it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat". Majority rules, according to Con. I'm pretty sure the majority of people on this planet don't believe the conspiracy to be true. Since mainstream says the Lizards don't exist, that must be true. If not, here's some questions I want answered:
- If they do exist, then does the existence override mainstream? If so, why?
- If the majority doesn't decide what is true, then what does?
- If it is the self which decides what is true, then I can just claim they don't exist in good belief (since that's what most people says anyways, and Con hasn't convinced me otherwise), and win. Or the voters vote whomever they want, because that is the side they believe in.
- If it isn't the majority or the self which decides what is true, then what does? And I demand an explanation, of course.
- Assuming they do exist, why does David Icke believe the Reptilians exist? On what grounds does HE believe this to be true? If the voters buy the evidence (although I doubt Con would show evidence), they may vote for Con. If there is no evidence, nor a convincing argument, that makes the voters think they do exist, then feel free to vote Pro.
I would like Lexus to answer these questions. With that, what does she say?
He has broken his own structure, which his rules say will count as an automatic loss. He basically concedes because he breaks his own rules. Thanks, vote for me!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheResistance 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Broken rules. Pro didn't really touch on case of the 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.