The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The group known as "Illuminati" do exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 388 times Debate No: 77556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




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!


Challenge accepted. R1 acceptance as you said.
Debate Round No. 1


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



Occam's Razor is just completely of subject, trying to prove me wrong with a theory from hundreds of years ago, which I'm not saying is wrong but I don't believe it is in this argument. You called the Illuminati 'baloney' with 'no truth behind it'. Well in actual fact it was founded in 1776 by a German by the name of Adam Weishaupt. As secretive as it is now as it was back then, the Illuminati can be spotted all over the music industry. From pop stars gesturing the famous Illuminati sign (which by the way does not really have anything in common with the group besides the actual eye it's self), to lyrics in their songs it's literally everywhere you look. It's also found in their music videos as well to increase the fact that they exist. But well you may say, if they were so secretive why would they demand singers to effectively advertise their organisation to the whole world? This is because if people didn't do this then who would actually know about the Illuminati and if they actually existed. They are still a secretive organisation.
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.
Debate Round No. 2


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.



Look the illuminati is a real, legitimate organisation that existed and we have no proof if it still exists or if it does not. I believe it does as why would so many links be found in todays world. You've not really gone into any depth on the theory and how it proves me wrong. Yes it may be a scientific law but you've not exactly provided ' CONCRETE EVIDENCE' that they don't exist have you?
Debate Round No. 3


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.



Look the Occam's Razor theory is something I now no of and completely understand. You have no evidence that there not real. All you have relied on is this law all the way through the argument and not actually stated why they don't exist. I cannot remember you once saying in this argument your assumptions ' Illuminati Triangle boosts sales'. I didn't say the music industry knows about it I implied that they might meaning your theory would then be a so called 'draw'. You've repeated the same thing over and over without sting actual facts about the group and their no existence.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
Illuminati =/= light now

For that, what does "light now" even mean?!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
illuminati=light now
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
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:50 
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.