The Instigator
yuvraj2104
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lol101
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

is the Illuminati

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 2 votes the winner is...
lol101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 80122
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

yuvraj2104

Pro

is the Illuminati real or not
lol101

Con

The Illuminati is no longer real. They were real at a certain point in the 1700's, https://en.wikipedia.org... but there is no sign of the Illuminati being real in the present. You have the Burden of Proof.
Debate Round No. 1
yuvraj2104

Pro

wikipedia is not any proof it is not a reliable source
lol101

Con

Unfortunately, all Pro comes up with is a contradiction. Although, there is one fatal flaw. He had the BoP, and yet he still didn't argue for the Illuminati being real.

I also have two points to make about my source: a) The source could be unreliable or reliable depending on its moderation, but simply saying it's unreliable without giving reason for it isn't sufficient to counter the source. Since wiki is known for both, you must analyze the source and prove it's unreliable, rather than just stating otherwise.
b) If my source is unreliable (which you didn't prove), this means that the Illuminati NEVER existed. In that case, that doesn't strengthen your claim. You only attempted to prove that the Illuminati didn't exist in 1700's rather than come up with a case of your own to prove they *still* exist. And since you didn't come up with a case, and didn't give a reason for the voters to believe that the source is unreliable, my argument stands.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
Yup.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
illuminati=light now
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
yuvraj2104lol101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: While I agree with Pro's statement that wikipedia is not a reliable source... Pro did not provide a source of his own. Con is the only debaters to provide a source and therefore receives the most reliable source point. Pro did provide any argument regarding the illuminati, only an opening statement; Con did provide an argument and therefore receives the more convincing argument point. Additionally, Pro failed to use punctuation or capital letters; whereas Con displayed satisfactory S&G, ultimately receiving the S&G point.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
yuvraj2104lol101Tied
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: BoP on Pro