The Lizard Illuminati is false

Brief roadmap: defense of the affirmative's rebuttal against me, some attacks on their defense argument, consolidated voting issues. DefenseMy opponent simply doesn't understand my case. Any belief, I claim and Zerubavel claims, is inherently true if it is made within a good enough faith-claim. Baudrillard gives the example, in his book Simulacra and Simulation, of an Italian bomber in the streets. All beliefs -- from it being left wing reformists, right wing reactionaries, centrist seat-takers, a police state -- all of these are actors in the bombing, since people believe in these things within their own good faith.Evidence is not needed to make a decision. I have no evidence to know that I will not die in the next minute, but I know that this is true -- how? Analytical truth-finding of a good faith-based claim makes you see the ultimate reality of something (cue Zizek's distinction of the Real and reality, I won't get into that, but if you are interested read Violence by Zizek!).David Icke, he and I both claim, made his claim within good faith. He had seen and conspired of what is true, and as my author's claim unrefutedly, made them true! His conspiracy theory is a good faith-based claim based on past ideas and so on ... so it must be at least somewhat true.Your Christopher Columbus example is not useful to this debate at all. One: it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat (source: hundreds of anthropologists). Two: the Earth is both flat and round -- those that had the belief that the Earth is flat were correct! Those that thought it was round were correct! There exists a logical barrier that stops us from seeing that these can be dually true, but light is both a particle and a wave (some claim) and that violates our intuitions ... does that make it any less true?Attack on DefenseMy opponent clings to his evidence-necessary argument. I provide you evidence that it is true that there exist illuminati lizards -- the resolution should vote my way if there are both lizards and not lizards, as just part of that analysis is necessary to negate.Then he says if the conspiracy is true then we must be enslaved. I am not a lizard (I claim, you may prove me wrong) so I don't know why we aren't enslaved. Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it will (see: human extinction). They are ruling over us, I claim and David Icke claims, but they are not enslaving us (or are they? Make a faith-based claim in earnest and it will become true)Voting IssuesBurdens - the burdens were never specifically stated, so we must see that (as default) the burden is shared between the aff and the neg. If the neg wins more impactful arguments than the aff, vote neg -- if the aff doesn't have any arguments outweighing the neg, don't give arguments to either. Normative resolution.Arguments - my opponent has none that actually prove the resolution to be true. He keeps making this fallacious argument that because we haven't seen it means it cannot ever be true, and then saying that we aren't enslaved so we never can be in the future. Don't grant him access to these arguments, as I have shown, human extinction hasn't happened, that doesn't mean it won't or that it isn't on its course, and so on. My arguments say that lizard people are necessarily true, as Icke's argument is made within good faith and within his own reasoning. There isn't a reason to see that they can't exist - my opponent just gives the Columbus example when that isn't even a means to disprove the Social Lens, it's just a means of attacking our intuition. And as I have shown, our intuitions are not always correct. I have some arguments left, they have none -- default neg.