Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
RFD for Illiumanti DDO
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 6:28:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
The debate is here
I think that this debate is a win for Con, arguments, and spelling.. Even though Con forfeited, Pro said it was no problem, which is good conduct from both sides. I might have gave Conduct to Con because of Pro's trolling, but thinking of the forgiveness of the forfeiture, I will remain the conduct point tied.
Now to the reason why give spelling and grammar points. Whiteflame says that my vote will get removed if I point out their was one spelling mistake. But this debate, especially Pro's first round, is not. The first round, over 50% of the words were spelling errors, maybe even sixty. I couldn't understand a lot also. For five minutes I had to think what the words meant. Like illuminatu was wrong, and I was looking of if the word is actually illuminatu not illuminati.
"i will argue ddo --> debate.org is illuminatu and the othr guy (my deer friend n oppnnt) will prove its not
1st rnd acceptance
plz try ur BESS"
'I' did not have any capital letter. illuminatu is not a word, and made me very confused. othr guy sounds like otter guy. I thought that you actually had a deer friend. It might be on purpose, and as a joke, but to the voters, that is sometimes really hard to understand. oppnnt is completely stupid. Even right now when I am writing, things in grammarly come out, "spelling error detected! click here to have correct spelling!"
This is my main reason why I think that Con should be awarded spelling, and I think that is enough.
Now lets address the main arguments in the debate.
Pro's main argument is that illuminati is an eye, and juggle represents eye, airmax backwards sounds like something which has the meaning of eye, blah blah blah. Con proves that like this,
"However, those animals do actually develop eyelids , so we can toss this theory out.
There's another part about his name spelt backwards but again, this is just a case of Pro connecting invisible dots with mere hypothesis. None of this conclusively proves that Airmax is part of the Illuminati. "
Point rebutted. Con also makes arguments that Juggle isn't illuminati and shows this, and says if the owners aren't illminati, the site can't. Con also points out that bench is the last name. Con said he was not an illuminati which also rebuts some of the argument: because he was in the examples also.
Prop tries to defend this by saying that 'in' in Linkin sounds like ain which is illuminati. He fails to prove why airmax is illuminati. He says that imabench is a bench and a bench can't debate which is out of the resolution. Whatever else he says, his one and only argument is defeated by Con.
Con says this, "So what have we learned from reading its true history and internal conflict? We've learned that this group was nothing more than a boys' club and by the end the two biggest leaders in the movement were bickering like school-children, threatening each other to reveal the fakeness of it all. This was all found in Pro's own source too. (1)" He says it is banned, and it is unimportant. Con shows that illuminati wasn't actually an eye part.
It is actually what Con explains
"This is mostly due to the popular literature surrounding the organization that has been published since its demise. The source of this literature can be traced back to 1797 and 1798, with Augustin Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism and John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy. These books hypothesized that the Illuminati was behind the French Revolution (key word - hypothesized), and many reprints and paraphrases spawned from these books.
Then, during the 1820's-1830's there was a rise in the anti-masonic movement, which propulsed the usage of the term Illuminati into popular culture once more.
As for the modern-day groups theorized to be associated with the Illuminati, there has been no evidence that these present-day groups have amassed significant political power or influence, and rather than trying to remain secret, they promote unsubstantiated links to the Bavarian Illuminati as a means of attracting membership, which defeats the whole purpose of a 'secret society'. "
Pro never rebutted that part.
Because Con rebutted all of Pro's arguments, when Con's second argument was not refuted, the win is to Con.