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

There are secret societies

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 79928
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




My position is that there are secret societies that rule the world because they form naturally. Let's take my personal life as an example. When I was small, I lived in a neighbourhood and there were approximately 25-30 kids there, ages in the range of 10-11-12. At first, we did not know eachother (new neighbourhood) and later on we went outside, one by one, and became friends. We used to play football, drive bycycles, climb in the woods, and have sleepovers. I would say these were among the best summers..

..but back then, we didn't realize what happened, only now, looking back do I see it. We actually formed a smaller circle, of about 5 most influential kids. There was no document to sign for membership, there was nothing like that, we simply knew who that it was us, and we had stronger connections than with others.

We would not isolate ourselves though, not at all. It was about organizing events, 'lets do this and that', and simply having a great time. But then when problems would arise, such as two new kids who would begin to draw attention, we would meet in the woods and discuss them, and how to get rid of them or lock them out -- we were basically the mini illuminati.

My point is, if a bunch of 10 year olds can form this kind of thing in two or three years, what can billionaires and CEOs form in a hundred years? It's quite evident to me that there is a ruling elite.



I accept this debate. Personal experience is not a valid reason to suggest that it could be happening. Unless you can prove it then I do not see how you can win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm quite positive that personal experience *can* assure us there is a ruling elite, but absolute proof, I agree, is not derived from that. Let's begin by stating these two things:

(1) There are the Bilderbergs. They consist of world's leading politicians, CEOs of large companies, and media directors. They meet in a hotel under total lockdown and talk for several days. No one except themselves know what they talk about. They could very well be planning world events and ruling the world this way, it's quite easy to do so under these circumstances. Here is a picture of the hotel:

(2) There are politicians meeting at the Bohemian Grove every midsummer and they perform sacrifices infront of a giant owl statue. The politicians admit that the club exist, but they say it's for "fun and party" without any seriousness attached to it. However, I find this incredibly unlikely, considering the fact that whenever they are interviewed, and the intervieweer mentions the Bohemian Grove, they show either incredible nevrousness and immense sweating, or run away and call the security on the intervieweer -- I would not act that way if it were a party club.

Here is an insider video:

Here is an outsider video:



I will not refute the R1 since that has little to with Secret Societies ruling our world instead I will use this round to refute R2.

Rebuttal to argument (1): My opponent clearly has little knowledge on the Bilderberg so I fill him in. The Bilderberg conference consists of 120 to 150 people of the European and North American political elite, experts from industry, finance, academia, and the media, established in 1954. The group operates with a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its global market interests. We do not know exactly what they are discussing because like many important government decisions they are not videoed and are not released as soon as decisions are made. It is not abnormal for the government to have a bit of secrecty. If this was an alarming issue and people really suspected that they were keeping secrets from us then there would be riots and protests.

The group's original goal of promoting Atlanticism, of strenghtening US-European relations and preventing another world war has grown; the Bilderberg Group's theme is to "bolster a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe", according to Andrew Kakabadse. In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and, a steering committee member for 30 years, said: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

According to former chairman Étienne Davignon in 2011, a major attraction of Bilderberg group meetings is that they provide an opportunity for participants to speak and debate candidly and to find out what major figures really think, without the risk of off-the-cuff comments becoming fodder for controversy in the media. A 2008 press release from the "American Friends of Bilderberg" stated that "Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference and that at the meetings, no resolutions were proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued". However, in November 2009 the group hosted a dinner meeting at the Château of Val-Duchesse in Brussels outside its annual conference to promote the candidacy of Herman Van Rompuy for President of the European Council.

As you can clearly see, the decisions may be secretive but the topics being discussed aren't secrets It would be extremely difficult for all 150 of them to keep this a secret. If even one of them disagreed with a decision they may decide to release it to the public. It would be far to difficult for them to contain this and keep it to themselves.

Rebuttals to argument (2):

Bohemian Grove is a 2,700-acre (1,100 ha) campground located at 20601 Bohemian Avenue, in Monte Rio, California, belonging to a private San Francisco-based men's art club known as the Bohemian Club. In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a two-week, three-weekend encampment of some of the most prominent men in the world.

The Bohemian Club's all-male membership and guest list includes artists, particularly musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials (including U.S. presidents), senior media executives, and people of power. Members may invite guests to the Grove although those guests are subject to a screening procedure. A guest's first glimpse of the Grove typically is during the "Spring Jinks" in June, preceding the main July encampment. Bohemian club members can schedule private day-use events at the Grove any time it is not being used for Club-wide purposes, and are allowed at these times to bring spouses, family and friends, though female and minor guests must be off the property by 9 or 10 pm.

After 40 years of membership the men earn "Old Guard" status, giving them reserved seating at the Grove's daily talks, as well as other perquisites. Former U.S. president Herbert Hoover was inducted into the Old Guard on March 19, 1953; he had joined the club exactly 40 years prior. Redwood branches from the Grove were flown to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City where they were used to decorate a banquet room for the celebration. In his acceptance speech, Hoover compared the honor of the "Old Guard" status to his frequent role as veteran counselor to later presidents.

The Club motto is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here", which implies that outside concerns and business deals (networking) are to be left outside. When gathered in groups, Bohemians usually adhere to the injunction, though discussion of business often occurs between pairs of members. Important political and business deals have been developed at the Grove. The Grove is particularly famous for a Manhattan Project planning meeting that took place there in September 1942, which subsequently led to the atomic bomb. Those attending this meeting included Ernest Lawrence, U.C. Berkeley colleague Robert Oppenheimer, various military officials, the S-1 Committee heads such as the presidents of Harvard, Yale and Princeton along with representatives of Standard Oil and General Electric. At the time, Oppenheimer was not an official S-1 member due to security clearance troubles with the U.S. wartime Government, though Lawrence and Oppenheimer hosted the meeting. Grove members take particular pride in this event and often relate the story to new attendees

This clearly shows that this is not a secret area. It is an area that politicians have a bit of fun at and discuss political problems. The most likely reason that politicians are reluctant to speak about it is because they do not only have fun. Some of the issues that are discussed there are most likely confididential - just because somebody is reluctant to speak that doesn't mean you should jump to the conclusion that they are running secret societies that are controlling the world. This is not enough evidence and therefore I reject the claim that secret societies are running the world.


Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for such a short response, but there is simply nothing to respond to.

All you have done is provide several quotes from various people who state there is nothing serious going on, that's it basically. You provided no evidence of such, only words from people and we know how easily people will lie. For example, there is a famous video of a state spokeswoman answering questions, and claiming repeatedly and with a straight face that the U.S. is not and will never be involved in coups, which is such a blatant lie that many wondered if she was a biological human or a machine.

You also never addressed the interviews with the people involved and their reactions, which include: anger, nervousness and defensive, something people from not-so-serious meetings would certainly not express. You also never took into account the Insider video which I have provided, showing them perform a secret society ritual infront of the owl. My point is, there is more evidence that they're doing 'more than partying and discussing normal matters', on both the Bilderbergs and Bohemians.


Paragraph 1: My opponent has refuted hardly any of my arguments. They have missed out how many of my arguments including the fact that it is a secret place that discusses laws. It is clear that they will not broadcast all their decisions immediately. You cannot claim that they are lying without any evidence that they are. People are often nervous when speaking out secretive places on TV. If they accidentally reveal something that they shouldn't the consequences could be drastic ... and by revealing something secret I don't mean a secret about ruling the world. I mean a more realistic secret about governing us and information about political decisions.

Paragraph 2: This is covered in my 1st paragraph. People are often nervous due to the fact that they aren't meant to reveal decisions before they have been publicly revealed. If people were constantly pressuring you to reveal secrets that you were not allowed to reveal it is common that you would respond in an angry manner. The Bilderbergs and Bohemians are well known for their actual purpose in society and it is preposterous that an accusation such as the one made by Pro could ever be taken seriously. These places are not the only places in the world where confidential meetings take place. Like you wouldn't want people knowing all of your secrets, these people do not want people knowing all of theirs. Just because somebody wants to keep some decisions (temporarily) secret, it does not mean that it is reasonable to make the assumption that they are secret societies attempting to take over the world!
Debate Round No. 3


(1) The secrecy around the Bilderberg meetings does allow for a secret ruling elite to exist -- simlpy the existence of a place under total lockdown where the ruling class of the world meet and exchange words is a platform for world domination. The argument that they are using that platform, is found in common sense. The overwhelming majority of the people, if they were of political and industrial importance, would definitely take the opportunity to roll the world their way -- and they have the ability to do so.

(2) The nervousness is not only shown in people who have been a part of the Bilderberg meetings, but also the people who have participated in at the Bohemian Grove, which is a place for 'party and fun' according to mainstream sources. There is no reason to display such mental signs of secrecy under these circumstances.


(1) Of course the secrecy around the Bilderberg means that it is a possibility but there is a possibility of everything. There is a possibility that I am a alien typing this debate. If I did a debate claiming that I am an alien and my arguments is that it's a possibility I would still lose. The reason that it's on total lockdown is because there are important government officials in the Bilderberg. It would be highly illogical to leave the place unprotected so that anyone could walk in. How do they have the ability to rule the world? Please elaborate on this point in the final round. Making a claim that they have this power is not enough on its own. That could simply be refuted by stating that it would be insane for a group of that many people to create terrorist attacks and poverty. If they really could rule the world their way surely they would make the world good for them and their country. If they really could rule the world then surely the Syrian refugees would be okay. If members of the UK are there then they wouldn't want all of these Syrian refugees trying to get into England and the UK in general. They would make it okay so that England will not be overpopulated.

(2) As I stated in the first round, the discuss political topic there too. Just to reiterate,

"membership and guest list includes artists, particularly musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials (including U.S. presidents), senior media executives, and people of power. "

With all of these guests it would be inevitable that if they were ruling the world then the secret would be broken out each year because every year more and more people are invited to the party.

"It is an area that politicians have a bit of fun at and discuss political problems."

This is basically the same reason as to my first rebuttal. They are having political discussion and as a result of this they are obliged to secrecy.
Debate Round No. 4


pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.


Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Pro forfeited last round, conduct to Con for not forfeiting. Neither side's spelling or grammar impeded either side's intended meaning, so S&G tied. The resolution is unclear, but I took it to be: "Secret societies rule the world" instead of the title "Secret Societies Exist." Pro argued from personal experience that since he and his 10 year old friends could form a secretive and influential group that millionaires could easily do the same, therefore they rule the world through their secrecy. Con points out this is a personal experience argument and is invalid Pro agrees it is not proof. Pro's Bilderberg argument is refuted successfully by Con simply by showing that useful information can be attained on them makes them not a secret society, thus assuming global rule through this false premise is flawed. Pro attempts the Bohemian Grove argument which is refuted by Con pointing to more knowledge on them. Pro fails to show secret societies, so he fails to meet his burden and Con refuted all of Pro's claims. Arguments to Con. Pro's sources were not very credible and didn't seem to demonstrate that the secret societies had global control/power. Also, the youtube videos provided seem not to be credible or valid and one of the videos was an hour and a half long, so i didn't bother watching every bit of it. Either way, the two videos didn't seem credible and they were not used to support Pro's arguments successfully. Con on the other hand referenced wikipedia which did provide credibility on the matter of the very things that win him the arguments points...the proof that these societies are not secret. So, sources to Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.