The group known as "Illuminati" do exist
Debate Rounds (4)
I sent this challenge to @jacobstokes, and hope that he accepts. First round is for acceptance.
RESOLUTION: "The group named Illuminati do exist and are responsible for various acts of terrorism."
I am CON, arguing that the Illuminati do not exist.
Thanks to all viewers, and good luck!
It's called the "Occam's Razor", sometimes reffered to as the Law of Parsimony. This law states that "among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected"
Let me lay this out for you. My partner's hypothesis is as follows: "The group known as illuminati do exist and are responsible for various acts of terrorism."
Notice that my partner's theory assumes only one thing:
the existance of Illuminati
MY hopothesis is this: "The Illuminati "theory" is a bunch of baloney with no truth behind it, and all of it's supposed acts of terrorism can be explained much more easily."
I assume nothing, as something's dis-existance doesn't have to be assumed (especially if one side doesn't provide concrete proof) and their "acts" can be explained otherwise through easier channels.
So, according to the OCCAM's RAZOR, the ILLUMINATI DO NOT EXIST
You finish your argument with 'So, according to the OCCAM's RAZOR, the ILLUMINATI DO NOT EXIST'. That undermines your question. This means according to one theory they don't exist. ONE THEORY. It appears you need more 'concrete proof' as you would say.
I don't think you read my argument correctly. Even if it was just a theory, it would still disprove you. But it is much more than a theory. A LAW, something that has undergone trial from mulitple groups of scientists over the span of (how many did you say?) hundreds of years and has proved right in every regard, says that the ILLUMINATI does not exist.
I have found CONCRETE EVIDENCE (LAW'S count) as to the Illuminati's non-existance, while my partner has provided an ample story that wisely misses details without any proof to back it up. There is literally nothing to rebut.
This is becoming more of a kritic debate than anything else. Oh well..
"we have no proof if it still exists or if it does not" - Yes and no. We have no proof of it's existance, yet I have presented proof of it's non-existance.
"why would so many links be found in today[']s world[?]" (grammer courtesy of mfigurski) - Links such as? If you had at least found several of these "links", I may have even attempted to rebut them. You mentioned the music industry in Round 1. This "Illuminati Triangle" is popular because it attracts customers seeking inclusion into a secret. Again, use the Law of Parsimony.
You assume that the (a) Illuminati exist and (b) that the music industry knows about it. I assume (a) that the Illuminati Triangle boosts sales. You have two assumptions, I only one. Therefore, according to the Law of Parsimony, I must be correct.
"You've not really gone into any depth on the theory and how it proves me wrong." - On the LAW, I "haven't gone into any depth on the LAW".
And yes I have. Check out my first and only argument in Round 2. You might have missed it, I bet there was a lot of text around it and it was long and boring. I completely understand if you skipped over it the first time. Please read that now though.
"it may be a scientific law but you've no exactly provided 'CONCRETE EVIDENCE'" - It doesn't have to be concrete, as no rules state that it has to be neither tangible. If you'd check the link on the bottom of my Third Round... yes, the Wikipedia one... you'd find a website titled "Scientific Evidence".
I really don't understand this user's unproven and naive belief in the Illuminati. PRO has provided absolutely NO EVIDENCE save a made up story without backing and a mild reference to the music industry. I have used a tested and proven scientific LAW as evidence of Illuminati's non-existance, and PRO has only managed to call it phony and say it doesn't count, though there is no rules against logical evidence.
PRO gave no sources, and I've had to correct spelling while creating quotes in order to not be penalized for this by voters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: unfortunately pro makes assertions without sources. He couldn't exactly refute con while I can't trust his claims without evidence.
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.