DDO = Illuminati

Thank you, time for Rebuttals! I. The IlluminatiA. Wikipedia is part of the IlluminatiUnder this line of argumentation I claimed that the Illuminati was broken up by the government and furthermore suffered from inner-turmoil which ensured that it wouldn't continue as the same Bavarian Illuminati it once was regardless. Pro now asserts that my source, Wikipedia, is lying because they are a part of the Illuminati. This is amusing because I purposely used the same wikipedia article that Pro did to refute his R1 claims. That was the point, but now he is attacking the validity of his own source. If he is going to dismiss his own source, then his own arguments also fail to stand. If his arguments fail to stand, then I win - since Pro has the burden to prove that DDO is run by the Illuminati. In short, Pro defeats himself with this argument attacking *our* source. B. The in-fighting wasn't the end of the IlluminatiNext up in this line of argumentation, Pro focuses on my point regarding the in-fighting and how the Illuminati would have still been doomed to fail regardless of being broken up by the government. Pro rebuts this by sharing a quote from Adam Weishaupt: "I answer for nothing when I meet with resistance from my adepts; I have foreseen everything, and I have prepared everything. Let my whole Order go to rack and ruin; in three years I will answer to restore it, and that to a more powerful state than it is in at present -- Obstacles only stimulate my activity. I know how to turn them to my advantage; and when people think that I am undone, even then shall I rise stronger than ever. Let that person [Knigge] leave me who thinks that he can better himself elsewhere; and time will show who is mistaken. I know how to find men more docile. I can sacrifice whole provinces, the desertion of a few individuals, therefore, will not alarm me."Pro follows this quote with an assertion that this is proof that the illuminati continued on. Pro is mistaken though. This portion of text was taken from a letter Weishaupt wrote to a fellow Illuminati member. In it, he was discussing the in-fighting between him and their #2 guy, Knigge. This text was written years before the Illuminati was actually broken up by the government. So, it's not like Weishaupt wrote this after they were broken up, swearing to rebuild it once more... this was merely him claiming that they'll survive after losing their #2 guy. [1] This portion of text means nothing more, and thus, Pro's rebuttal stands defeated. C. The illuminati was nothing more than a boys clubPro shares the following quote, stating that it's proof that the Illuminati was more than a boys club.:"... it is really the fact in some states, that potent Monarchs are governed by our Order ... When you have succeeded anywhere in making yourself master of the public authority and government, you will pretend not to have the least power ..."This is not the case.Take a look at the following link, specifically at the section titled, "Instruction B for the whole degree of Regent" http://www.sacred-texts.com... You'll see that this quote is merely bits and pieces from a set of rules that pertains to a specific order within their group, specifically part IV and part VIII. [2] With that in mind, recall back to my first round where I presented evidence of the leader, Adam Weishaupt, admitting to Knigge that the "orders" of their group have yet to be written, and that he even bribed Knigge to keep their fakeness a secret by promising him a role in writing these new "orders" within the group. Thus, this is no proof whatsoever by Pro. Merely a quote from a set of made-up rules and orders. Anyone can write that they rule over monarchs or kings, including both you and me or anyone reading this debate, but that doesn't make it true. With Pro's lack of substantial evidence, his rebuttal stands defeated. D. The belief in conspiracy circles that the Illuminati survives today and was behind the French Revolution is due to to unproven hypotheses of John Robison and Augustin Barruel.Pro is right that Jacobins were primarily responsible for the 'Reign of Terror'. However, Pro is merely assuming the Illuminati were a part of them or even influential within that group at the time. Keep in mind, the 'Reign of Terror' took place in 1793-94, a time when the Illuminati were already broken up. Pro has yet to establish that they survived post-breakup with any substantial evidence. Both authors, one of whom was a Jesuit (enemy of Masons & Illuminati) [3] hypothesize that the *Freemasons* were influencing the Jacobins. Pro takes it a step further by implying that the Illuminati were acting through the Freemasons, but we must keep in mind that there is no proof of the Illuminati infiltrating the Freemasons post-breakup. Simply stating that "they will or should" and actually "doing it" are two completely different things. Pro fails to provide evidence for the latter. Pro then says that George Washington believed Jacobins and the Illuminati were the same thing. However, contrary to Pro's claim, G.W. consistently refers to them as separate entities throughout the correspondence Pro cited, as evidenced by his statement, "the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism has not spread in the United States." [4]II. Juggle is part of the IlluminatiA. Pro thinks the two O's in Google mean eyes.Pro clarifies by stating that, "Google is an adjective that describes bulging eyes, hence the link to Illuminati." Still nothing more than an unproven claim. According to the Company history page [5]: Google.com is registered as a domain on September 15, 1997. The name—a play on the word "googol," a mathematical term for the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros—reflects Larry and Sergey's mission to organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web. Clearly Pro is mistaken with his "theory". B. The founders of Debate.org aren't in the Illuminati.Pro completely dismisses my case pertaining to the history of the founders and their lack of involvement in any illuminati-esque groups. Instead, he focuses on the source I used for their history, their LinkedIn pages. Pro claims LinkedIn is another illuminati page due to the sound of the name being similar to a Hebrew term for eye. I'm surprised he didn't argue that the dot in the eye was a circle, and that the circle is the same shape as an eye. I jest. In all seriousness, this is just another baseless claim from Pro. His own argument works against him, he claims that just because there's no link between the founders and Illuminati doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. However, I'm not the one with the burden - he is. Him conceding that there is no evidence linking them clearly proves his own case wrong. You can't uphold a burden of proof without the *proof* part. C. Axolotls develop eyelids.Axolotls develop eyelids nonetheless, thus defeating his previous theory. He then relies on another theory regarding Airmax's name specifically, showing the chemical sign for air as proof of him being a part of the illuminati. Is Air itself part of the Illuminati? After all, it's chemical sign is a pyramid right? Of course not, air is an element. Perhaps Airmax is an element?! That's the problem, when we apply Pro's manner of hypothesizing it's possible to draw a connection between nearly anything. While amusing, it's lacking any and all substance.D. imabench is literally a Bench. Dan Bench, otherwise known on DDO as imabench, is a human male of the Bench family, hence his surname. It is contextually acceptable to say that he is literally a Bench. Is he the type of bench which refers to an inanimate object? Obviously not. He is, however, someone from the Bench family, thus he is a Bench. E. Iannan13 has a Jew as his avatar and the Illuminati prohibited Jews from joining, so he can't be in the Illuminati.Pro requests a source regarding whether Jews were allowed in the Illuminati or not:A system of mutual espionage kept Weishaupt informed of the activities and character of all his members, his favourites becoming members of the ruling council, or Areopagus. Some novices were permitted to recruit, becoming Insinuants. Jews and Pagans were specifically excluded, along with women, monks, and members of other secret societies. Favoured candidates were rich, docile, willing to learn, and aged 18–30. [6]F. The Illuminati was against religion so YYW can't both be in the Illuminati and have a religious name.Pro has still failed to prove how YYW means YHVH when the member himself has stated what their name means.G. bsh1 is a guy.Pro drops my argument regarding the origin of his username as stated in my last round.H. My opponent's avatar is masonic, not related to the Illuminati, and Freemasons disliked the Illuminati.Pro is incorrect. It's the illuminati that joined the Freemasons, in order to learn from our rituals while forming their own, as I pointed out in my previous round. Regardless, Pro hasn't upheld his burden of proving I'm in the Illuminati. This ultimately sums up Pro's major obstacle here, and why he will lose the debate - he has continously failed to provide any substantial evidence while ignoring the empirical explanations guided by rationality, and merely relies on far-fetched connections, unproven theories, and unsubstantiated claims by biased authors. As it stands, Pro's entire case has been defeated. Pro has yet to prove the Illuminati ever surived their breakup, and more importantly, has failed to prove that DDO is run by the Illuminati. Sources [1] Memoirs, Illustrating the History of Jacobinism Pg. 203[2] http://www.sacred-texts.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://founders.archives.gov...[5] https://www.google.com... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...