David Icke's view that the world is ruled by a secret group called "Illuminati" is false

However, I want to note that my opponent relies heavily on quotes, and I ask him that in later rounds he cite them to confirm not only their authenticity but so I can read the quote in context. ==================== Various quotes ==================== If my opponent really think that citing quotes is evidence, then he is sadly mistaken. Simply quoting people saying they believe in something is HARDLY evidence for anything. It's like me trying to show that God exists by quoting theists saying "God exists" or "I truly believe he is there! " Obviously, any intellectual would say it doesn't matter that people believe in something - because what people believe has NO contingency on whether or not it's true. I hope the voters and my opponent realize that quoting people's beliefs is NOT evidence at all, but wishful thinking at best. In some ways, it's related to argument ad populum - just because people believe it's true, doesn't mean it's true. On another note, many of my opponent's quotes or people he refers to as Illuminati members is under false pretenses. They are often quoted out of context (traces of Creationism anyone? ) or quoted with wishful thinking. For example, a commonly cited Illuminati "member" is David Rockefeller's book Memoirs, where he supposedly admits to being an Illuminati member. This claim is not only false, but outrageously stupid for several reasons: 1. In context, Rockefeller is referring to people who have attacked his family for being internationalist - something that he and many others endorse (as do I). Unless my opponent is willing to say that EVERY internationalist and globalist is an Illuminati, then we can all realize that D. R. 's intention had nothing to do with Illuminati. 2. When asked by an interviewer of whether or not he was an Illuminati member, he denied it. Now think about this. If he was keen on revealing his secret, WHY would he deny it in an interview? People say it's to cover it up - but he freaking wrote a BOOK with it; something that people can buy and go over again and again. The answer is simple: he has been misinterpreted. ==================== Council on Foreign Relations + Bilderberg Group + Trilateral Commission ==================== A common theme amongst conspiracy theories is their tendency to conflate normal events into wild ideas. They take otherwise normal events, and twist it into something totally off-chart. For example, both the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC) are think thank organizations with the purpose of promoting better foreign relations between countries. Being heavily invested by the likes of David Rockefeller, it is no doubt that many famous people attend these organizations. They are homes to constant debate, refurbishment of foreign policies, and anything else that are qualities of a good think thank. However, avid Icke followers are committing a horrendously UN-parsimonious claim in thinking these are actually the forefront of Illuminati. Same thing with the Bilderberg Group. These are simply annual events in which high-ranking people will meet, with the purpose of of "promoting understanding between the cultures of United States of America and Western Europe"[1]. It is now the burden of my opponent to overcome this hurdle of parismony (Occam's Razor), and show why the more simplistic claim shouldn't be preferred - all common sense currently dictates as such. ==================== Sociological theories of power ==================== G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology, discusses the flaw of conspiracy theories in primarily sociological terms. He explains the current theories of power structures - which is basically the measure of someone's or something's ability to control their environment - discount conspiracy theories. Here are some key points: 1. Conspiracy theories assume that "a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don't fit with the roles they seem to have. " A powerful businessman will not desire to make money anymore, but instead seek world domination. Amusingly, claims like this have happened tons of times - especially in Hollywood movies. It's always depicting a powerful person going "greedy with wealth". However, psychology tells us otherwise. 2. Historical and sociological evidence shows that, quite obviously, leaders make mistakes. Conspiracy theories assume that these leaders are HIGHLY CLEVER and intelligent do NOT have mess-ups or mistakes. 3. Conspiracies put immense power into the hands of a few, when in reality it usually involved much MUCH more people. 4. Assumes clever elites have somehow "manipulated the thinking of their hapless bosses. " On the contrary, evidence shows that people usually stay in the area of their policy. 5. This one is quite clear: it assumes that the SECRET WON'T COME OUT. Such a massive world-scale operation like this has garnered, what, a few quotes? Essentially, my opponent construes the Illuminati to be a group of unimaginably clever people who rarely, if ever, make a mistake. A group that confounds common sociological thought and defies common theories of psychology. A group that most likely doesn't freaking exist. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's position is one of intellectual emptiness. The foundations of it's evidence relies on several quotes with many out-of-context ones, constant conspiracism[3] and unparsimonous theories, and at best wishful thinking. Evidence shows that the forefront groups are NOT Illuminati, but sincere efforts to improve the world. Not only does psychology and sociology say David Icke is nuts, so does common sense. ---References--- 1. Hatch, Alden (1962). "The Hï¿½ï¿½tel de Bilderberg". H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands: An authorized biography. London: Harrap. ISBN B0000CLLN4. 2. . http://sociology.ucsc.edu... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...