The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

I see you want to play technical. I see how it has to be. Okay, in your "Rebuttal 1", you talk about how I haven't proved my point. That couldn't be further from the truth. Take a look at a sentence from my first post in Round 1. "I am here to give facts, as well as logic, to prove the Illuminati doesn't control the world." I have given both facts and logic, just like I said I would. A fact that I gave is that the "Illuminati" name isn't even a government control group that most people think it is. I showed that it is a group that promotes women's rights and gender equality. I also showed that the Zionists and Free-masons that are supposedly aligned with the Devil and are part of the Illuminati have no affiliation with either. The logic behind my points have been the biggest part of my argument. Let's just look at one example. Many people assume that the over-seeing eye represents the Illuminati and any celebrity who uses it is part of the Illuminati. Well I have already stated why that symbol is not part of the Illuminati. Besides, which one of these theories makes more sense. Theory that Illuminati exists: Certain celebrities hold up signs that have no relation to Zionism and Free-masonry. Those religions/groups have no relation to devil worshipping. Devil worshipping has no relation to a potential controlling government power. But somehow, they all relate even though there is no proof, evidence, or logic behind it, and when a celebrity holds up the over seeing eye symbol, he or she is part of the Illuminati, which by the way, is a name that has nothing to do with a potential government control power. My theory: Obviously, the over seeing eye does not relate to what the "Illuminati" supposedly is. Also, celebrities could be using those signs for publicity and more money. We see celebrities promoting things they really don't partake in anyway. For example, when Michael Phelps promotes McDonald's as the food he eats to train for the Olympics, which is most likely false considering the enormous amount of fat in their food. Just another example. When it's all said and done, which theory makes more sense? That's what this is all about, and all signs point toward my theory being more coherent over the "Illuminati theory", which I call the "Illuminati hoax". The same thing goes for my "A+B=C" logic. Yes, I will concur that it's what I have been using. But once again, my "A+B=C" logic makes a whole lot more sense than the "A+B=C" logic of the Illuminati theory. If my theory makes more sense, then wouldn't that mean the Illuminati most likely doesn't exist? My theory of how the Illuminati became a theory does in fact have indirect evidence. First off, the video that I showed in my "Round 3" debate shows that the government is up to something bad and it has to do with the potential death of millions of people. With that being said, wouldn't my theory be a way to divert the attention of the citizens of the USA to something else, such as the Illuminati? Yes, my theory doesn't have cold hard facts. My theory has logic. Once again, my theory has 10000x better logic than that incoherent theory of the Illuminati. Since you feel that I have not addressed your theory on Corporate America, I will address it directly. In "Round 3", I said "So yes, is there a possibility of a corrupt, controlling government? Yes.". So, there is a possibility that the Illuminati is in fact a metaphor for corporate America. Let me ask you this; Isn't your statement about the Illuminati being a metaphor just a "theory with no evidence"? I'll leave that up to you to decide. In conclusion, my point is that my logic makes more sense tan the logic of the Illuminati theory. With that being said, if my logic makes more sense, wouldn't that indicate the Illuminati doesn't exist and doesn't control the world? I think so.