MTV Is Run By Masons

Arguments/RebuttalsI. "Is run by" = "Is owned by"In this line of argumentation I expanded on who really owns MTV, a multi-national media company called Viacom. The man who runs the MTV portion of Viacom is Tom Freston, as shown in my previous round. I stated in the last round that for Pro's premise to be considered valid he would need to present proof of Tom Freston being a Freemason. In response, Pro said the following:"They would be secret Freemasons. I obviously can't give proof for that, but It's an assumption based off of the other points I made. "This is the problem. .. Pro said, "it's an assumption". Unfortunately, that is not enough to affirm Pro's position. Pro needs to uphold the BOP (Burden of Proof), which is the obligation to prove one's assertion. Without such proof, there is no reason to accept Pro's assumptions as valid. In short, assumptions are unfortunately not enough to uphold the burden of proof that is needed to affirm Pro's position. Additionally, pictures of a Masonic temple or celebrities on MTV add nothing to the claim that MTV is owned by Freemasons. What Pro needed to do to uphold his burden was provide sound proof to validate his assumptions. That could have come in the form of Tom Freston wearing a Masonic ring in a picture, perhaps a Masonic logo on his vehicle, or a picture of him attending a Masonic lodge. Unfortunately for Pro, no such evidence was given, thus there is absolutely no reason to *assume* that he is a Freemason. I could claim that Brittney spears is a Freemason too, but without proof there is no reason to accept such a claim as a valid one. Hence this line of argumentation remains standing while Pro's assumptions stand defeated due to a lack of valid proof. II. "One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple. "Pro offered no rebuttal for this line of argumentation. Thus I extend it as it remains standing unchallenged by Pro. Pro's initial claim was that one of MTV's offices are located in a building that once served as a Masonic temple, thus MTV is run by Freemasons. However, if you look at the Wikipedia page for that specific building, it shows a CTV sign. [1] The article goes on to say that before the building was purchased by CTV, "it housed live music clubs known as the Concert Hall. " In addition to the previous owners not being Freemasons, MTV itself decided to move its office to another location in the city and sold the building to an IT-firm on June 17, 2013. So. .. the building isn't even occupied by MTV anymore. [2] [3] With it shown that the building itself has been under numerous owners, there is no reason to assume that just because MTV happened to be one of many occupants during it's history that MTV is run by Freemasons. Lastly, during the sale of the building from MTV to an IT-firm, the local Freemasons attempted to reclaim the building for themselves. [4] This raises the question as to why they'd want to reclaim the building for themselves if they technically own/run it themselves. It just doesn't make sense. The evidence is clear, the fact that MTV *temporarily* occupied the building holds no weight for the claim that Pro tried making by saying that "because they are located in a Masonic temple = they are run by Freemasons". This line of argumentation from Pro stands defeated. III. "Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right"Ah, I just noticed the 2nd picture Pro shared which shows the Masonic symbol with the words "concert hall" right above it on the brick interior wall. This makes perfect sense though since the Masonic temple became the "concert hall" after the masons moved out. The mimicry of the celebrities in the MTV awards picture in regards to the Masonic ritual of being tied with a noose while blindfolded and tied hands does nothing to affirm that MTV is run by Freemasons. That ritual is highly sacred, and if MTV WAS owned by Freemasons, they'd never allow non-masons to mimic such rituals publicly, especially if the celebrity is uninitiated. Furthermore, the celebrity in the image wasn't even mimicking the ritual in full. There was no noose, nor was the celebrity wearing the white-clothes which is a key part of the ritual. To the untrained eye, it really does look very similar. To the trained eye though, it's clear that it is far from the actual ritual, as well as the fact that a Mason would never allow a celebrity to mimic such a sacred ritual publicly. If anything, it is merely the script-writers and production teams for the show leeching off the latest fad of illuminati nonsense. It's easy to appear as if you are involved in Masonry, especially to the dumbed-down public which knows nothing of Masonic rituals unless they themselves have visited a temple and partook in the rituals themselves. Thus, these images do nothing in terms of providing substantial evidence in Pro's attempt of affirming the resolution. All they reflect are modern television shows (which is what the awards are) hopping on the illuminati bandwagon to increase viewer retention and rates due to the intriguing nature that surrounds such things as 'secret societies'. In closing, Pro dropped a major argument. Pro also failed to provide any substantial evidence and reasoning to show that MTV is run by Freemasons. On the flip side, I've provided rebuttals to each line of argumentation while utilizing valid evidence and sources. With Pro's lack of substantial evidence and arguments which were based solely on assumptions, I believe the resolution stands negated. I want to thank Pro for this invigorating debate, and look forward to any and all challenges in the future! Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Toronto)[2] . http://www.blogto.com...[3] . http://www.cbc.ca...[4] . http://www.thestar.com...