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

On the side note, I apologize that I didn't respond to the video. However, do take note that most people just put up a video as a complimentary "food of thought", if you will, instead of saying it's an actual argument. If they do, they usually refer to it. So please, in future events, refer to the video if you're going to use it. That being said, there isn't much to refute in the video. It does the same thing - QUOTE PEOPLE. I will now refer you to my first argument as a rebuttal of it. . http://www.youtube.com... ==================== Various quotes ==================== Does my opponent really think that giving me a link of a website that just repeats the quotes actually helps? Conspiracy theorists, creationists, or any other loonies ALWAYS love to quote people out-of-context. As any peer review community would want, I want my opponent to give me the ACTUAL sources of the quote - not a website that spits it out. Anyway, my opponent states that these quotes hold weight because "important people said so". Um, has my opponent ever heard of argumentum ad verecundiam? He is committing a fallacy by saying "smart people think so". Again, he fails to realize that his "evidence" of quoting what people believe is no better than theists quoting sermons and pastors - both intellectually impotent. He then brings up the point of witness testimonies - a common strategy I hear a lot. Just because witness testimonies are used in law, does NOT mean they are 1. reliable and 2. relevant. For one, witness testimonies are used in law because every case is different. The felon is a different person, the weapons varies, the reasons differ, the place of the crime varies, the victim varies, etc. Law needs testimonies because each case is unique in a way. Science is different! A free-falling body will (on Earth anyway) always fall at 9.8m/s - the bedrock of science is repeatable tests, something different from law. Secondly, many tests have shown that witness testimonies are unreliable[1]. Obviously, human memory is VERY fallible to forgetting and to bias creeping in - even without our awareness that it is. {quote}You also did not address the fact that I gave you names of ex-Illuminati members to establish the very existence of the society. {endquote} These "ex-Illuminati" members are either not what you make them out to be, or obscurely known and probably fakes. For example, tale Adam Weishaupt. He really was the founder of a secret society called Order of Illuminati. .. in the 1800's! The original society was no secret really, and many people joined it. HOWEVER, it never entailed beliefs in "reptilian humanoids" or "we wanna take over the world rawr". These nonsensical ideas were tacked on by people WAY LATER, such as David Icke. Weishaupt was a Kantian Idealist and a Deist - he wanted to do away with monarchy and organized religion and bring "to lay the foundation for the reformation of the world by the association of good men to oppose the progress of moral evil. "[2] Where does "we want to take over the world, trick people, mind control them, and become fascist rulers" EVER come up in his philosophy? Just because Weishaupt started a secret society doesn't mean it's some reptilian conspiracy. There are many secret societies- many are found in universities. The other names are otherwise normal people, until David Icke followers tack them on with crazy ideas relating to the Illuminati. If it's so "obviously known" they are members (sine they supposedly came out), how come it's not common knowledge that they are? The only people who acknowledge their so called past history with the Illuminati are people who believe in this! Any other reliable historian says otherwise. ==================== David Rockefeller ==================== {quote}You cannot claim a quote is taken out of context without a legitimate reason to believe so. Many of these quotes are straight forward and leave no room for open interpretation. {endquote} ----> Are you serious? ! I gave you the reference to DR's book - if you read it IN CONTEXT, then you will see that he was talking about his internationalist stance. Furthermore, he was also replying to people who said that he was an Illuminati member, and he replied sardonically that he wasn't. You wouldn't know the tone of his reply UNLESS you read it context! For example, the famously quoted-out-of-context statement by Charles Darwin (concerning the eye) is exactly the same! Creationists say "oh look, the quote shows that Charles Darwin doesn't believe an eye can form". But if you read in context, Darwin just uses the literary tool of saying something must be improbable, then he goes on to show why it isn't. In a way, he was refuting potential opponents. {quote}As far as Rockefeller denying that he is an Illuminati member, I have never seen such interview. {endquote} ---->I have posted the video up. A Canadian journalist (who believes in tons of BS conspiracy theories as well) luckily got an interview with him and you can see DR deny such claims of a world government. Do ignore all the crap and "deduction" the journalist did after - my point is that DR denies such interpretations. {quote}The rest of this is irrelevant as I did not use the quote you are referring to in my argument, nor do I use that quote to prove David Rockefeller is a member of the Illuminati. {endquote} ----> I realize that (though later you do), but I stated that argument to make a point. My point was that many conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, quote people out of context and/or horrendously misinterpret them. For example, you quote many prominent people calling for a New World Order. Besides your conspiracy theories, the term New World Order "refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. "[3]. This term has been used in reference to events such as the end of the Cold War. See what happens when you read/see things in context? ==================== Council on Foreign Relations + Bilderberg Group + Trilateral Commission ==================== Again, my opponent gives NO EVIDENCE. Just more quotes of people saying what they believe. I don't need to come back to why this is NOT evidence. ==================== Sociological theories of power ==================== {quote}The Illuminati doesn't care about some sociological theory of power. {endquote} What? ! People don't choose to "follow" sociological theories of power or not, they just DO. Sociology is the science of society, social institutions, and social relationships ; specifically : the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings[4]. My opponent has COMPLETELY avoided this argument. Theories of power structure aren't an option or method people can choose, it's a structure that MOST, if not ALL, people follow. Haha this is so predictable. My opponent's last point - referring to the intellect of the Illuminati - is ONCE AGAIN tons of quotes. I really don't need to point out the fallacy in this again. ==================== Conclusion and a couple of laughs ==================== I was expecting an amazing bundle of evidence. I was expecting facts, geographical locations, inconsistencies in government policies, and severely suspicious actions. I expected an extraordinary amount of evidence for this extraordinary claim. What I got instead was a horrendously conflated hypothesis that relied solely on quotes, many out-of-context, wishful thinking, and disregard for sociological theories of power structure. Can it be any more obvious who won? VOTE PRO. ---References--- 1. . http://agora.stanford.edu... 2. . http://www.nii.net... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.merriam...