DDO = Illuminati

Let's recap the developments of this debate thus far:Pro has set himself an incredibly high burden. The resolution is that DDO = Illuminati. Since "=" means "equal to" this resolution means that DDO equals the Illuminati. Of course, Pro has yet to prove this. That is to say, thus far, Pro has failed to uphold his Burden of Proof showing that DDO equals the Illuminati or is even ran by it. Instead of providing facts and substantial evidence, Pro has relied on conjecture, groundless assertions, and unproven claims built on unassociated symbolism popularized by conspiracy theorists. On the flip side, I've relied on verifiable data which shows 1) that the Illuminati were facing serious inner-turmoil by 1783, 2) that the Illuminati were officially broken up by the government in 1785, and 3) that none of the DDO members Pro listed are actually members of the Illuminati. Let's now wrap this up. I. The IlluminatiA. Wikipedia as a SourcePro concedes that parts of his source are correct even though he spent the last round arguing that it's all lies from the Illuminati since they, according to Pro, control wikipedia. The thing is, both Pro and I have utilized quotes from Illuminati members stating how they are meant to be in the shadows; a secret society. It logically follows that such a secret organization, if it did run wikipedia, wouldn't allow *any* information pertaining to them to be on the site at all. So, again, we can toss his theory out. Furthermore, I utilized that source merely to present the inner-turmoil facing the group and the government break-up of the group, which can also be verified by additional sources other than wikipedia (see: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]). So, we can see that I didn't *have* to rely on wikipedia, as this information is verified by several independent sources, but rather I utilized wikipedia because it was the same article Pro utilized and, ironically, defeated Pro's own points regarding them ever surviving post break-up. B. In-fighting amongst Illuminati members & their ultimate demisePro is additionally confused by my point regarding the "final straw that broke the camels back". Pro thinks that I claimed that the in-fighting amongst the members was the final straw that broke them up. This is a misunderstanding on his part. If you look at my Round 3 (the place where I first make this claim), I clearly state: "The final straw that broke the camels back internally was the fight between the two leaders, Weishaupt and Knigge. " So, we can see that I was specifically referencing the in-fighting with this point, and never once claimed it was the final straw that broke them up for good. In regards to Pro claiming the letter was written after the government broke them up, let's rely on the facts: The government broke them up on March 2, 1785. The letter was written on January 20, 1783. [8] So clearly Pro is misinformed regarding the date of this letter, as it is empirically shown to have been written two years before the government broke them up. Since this is Pro's only real argument in regards to "proof" that they continued on after the government break-up, his entire case now stands defeated. C. The illuminati was nothing more than a boys clubPro concedes that the writings he utilized in the previous round regarding them "ruling over kings" is just made up. Pro then claims that FDR was in the Illuminati, but provides no proof for this claim whatsoever. Instead he just relies on the fact that FDR allowed the inclusion of the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill. So what? FDR was a Freemason [9], not a member of the Bavarian Illuminati, and Pro produced no evidence suggesting otherwise. His final claim here is that the Illuminati wanted to instigate a international communist revolution. Again, *wanting* to do something, and actually *accomplishing* it are two different things. Pro has not given any evidence to support the latter. D. The illuminati infiltrated Jacobins and Freemasons. Pro's point regarding Jacobins being infiltrated rests solely on his previous claim that the letter written by Weishaupt proved they had survived the government break-up of their group. I have since shown that the letter was written two years prior to their break-up, defeating Pro's previous point. Thus, by extension, this argument stands defeated as well since it rested on Pro's disproved theory. Pro additionally starts to back-pedal his previous claim that George Washington claimed the Jacobins and Freemasons were the same thing, to now saying that, "George Washington considered the Jacobins and the Illuminati to be pretty much the same thing". Based on Pro's own quote, we can see that G. W. himself was hesitant to call them the same organization, and never once did. More so, this entire chain of letters Pro relies on additionally proves that the illuminati never infiltrated American Freemasonry, as I showed in my previous round utilizing direct quotes from Washington himself. II. DDO is part of the Illuminati (DDO = Illuminati)A. GooglePro's entire argument is this: Google is owned by Illuminati, so obviously they wouldn't admit it, thus anything they say officially is just a cover-story, a lie. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) Pro has yet to prove that Google is owned, operated, or even influenced by the Illuminati in any rational way. 2) It unjustly dismisses any valid evidence counter to Pro's own theories based on mere assumptions by Pro. Pro introduces a new convoluted theory regarding rainbows and Greek meaning. I've provided official reasoning from the site itself, and utilized quotes from the creators themselves including in regards to the origin of their name 'Google'. I believe the audience is reasonable enough to weigh my factual evidence accordingly against Pro's countless unproven theories. B. LinkedIn and the founders of JugglePro demands I provide an explanation for the "in" section of the name "Linkedin". Pro is mistaken on who has the burden of proof in this debate. It's *his* job to put forth evidence which tips the truth value of a claim in his favor. The status quo is not that Linkedin is part of the Illuminati. Since Pro is challenging the status quo it is he who must prove such a claim. His original claim was that the "in" part, when pronounced, sounds like the Hebrew word "ayin". He is wrong though. Please look at this video: in it you will see an instructor pronouncing the word 'ayin' like, "AIY-N" not like, "inn" which is what Linked(in) sounds like when fully pronounced. So Pro's theory is wrong, and thereby defeated. In regards to the owners of Juggle themselves, Pro claims he has proven their involvement in the Illuminati based on his symbolism theories. That's all he says. He's just restating a claim that I've already proven wrong in my last round, and contributes nothing to rebut my counter-evidence aside from claiming he's already done so. Thus, I extend all previous points regarding Juggle owners as they stand unchallenged by Pro in his final round. C. Axolotls and Airmax1227Pro drops the point about axolotls. He further misunderstands my counter-example of Airmax being an element based on the first half of his name and what it means. The point was to show the futility of Pro's endless theories based on hollow symbolism, which still stands unchallenged by Pro since he failed to address that accurately in his final round. He claims his theories still make more sense, yet fails to provide any reasoning as to why, rather, he just insists they are once more. Total failure of his BOP. D. ImabenchPro drops this argument. E. LannanCon says Jews were banned from the Illuminati, yet I proved the founder of the Illuminati was a Jew so that's irrelevant. It's actually not irrelevant, it creates a rational ground for why a hypothesized member of the illuminati wouldn't have a Jew as their representative image. Since Jews were banned from membership, regardless of the founders own heritage, it logically follows that they wouldn't be using Jews as their image. Also, lannan13 could be using a Jewish avatar as cover to throw people offKey word - Could. No proof was given by Pro, another failure of his BOP. F. YYWPro concedes that YYW has said his name means, 'Yeah, Yeah, Whatever'. Pro continues with his empty YHWH hypothesis, again, with no supporting evidence. G. Bsh1Pro drops this point. H. Myself (BOT)Pro claims that my response of denial is enough to prove I am a part of the Illuminati. Pro is mistaken, an absence of evidence is proof of nothing, and since he has provided no substantial evidence, he has proven nothing. In Conclusion, Pro's main case and rebuttals stand defeated, please vote Con. Sources[1] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 3 Chapter 2, pp202-226[2] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 3 Chapter 3, pp227-250[3] René le Forestier, Les Illuminés de Bavière et la franc-maçonnerie allemande, Paris, 1914, Book 4 Chapter 1, pp343-388[4] K. M. Hataley, In Search of the Illuminati, Journal of the Western Mystery Tradition, No. 23, Vol. 3. Autumnal Equinox 2012[5] McKeown, Trevor W. (16 February 2009). "A Bavarian Illuminati Primer". Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A. F. & A. M. Archived from the original on 27 January 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011. [6] Roberts, J. M. (1974). The Mythology of Secret Societies. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 128–129. ISBN978-0-684-12904-4. [7] Introvigne, Massimo (2005). "Angels & Demons from the Book to the Movie FAQ - Do the Illuminati Really Exist? ". Center for Studies on New Religions. Archived from the original on 27 January 2011. Retrieved 27 January 2011. [8] Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism: A Translation from the French of the Abbe Barruel, pg. 200[9] . http://www.mastermason.com...