DDO = Illuminati

Okay, this is the last round. Let's tie this up!I cited a source for facts supporting my case, and Con cited the same source for facts against it. I explained why the facts against it are false facts: because the source is Illuminati. Now Con's trying to say this undermines everything I based upon this source, but that isn't true; I can site a source without having to concede everything it says is true, and both I and Con agree that at least part of my source is correct anyways.In the first round, Con said the government banned the Illuminati, and then afterwards, the "final straw" that ended them was a dispute between Weishaupt and Knigge. I proved this was false with that letter by Weishaupt, and Con responds by saying this letter was written "years before" the Illuminati was "actually broken up" by the government. This contradicts his previous claim that the dispute was the "final" straw that ended them, so which is it? Did the government end the Illuminati, or did they end themselves through internal discord? My letter proves the dispute didn't end the Illuminati, and this was after the government ban, so ... the Illuminati were never actually shut down.My opponent himself isn't sure so we can hardly trust his judgement, especially considering he's part of the Illuminati (apparently).My opponent said the Illuminati was nothing more than a "boys' club", and I cited their writings saying they secretly controlled kings. My opponent basically responded that this was nonsense made up to entice new members into the order. Very well, let's pretend that's the case, even though this requires us to ignore the fact that our own President, Roosevelt, was in the Illuminati and put the All-Seeing Illuminati Eye on our money. How else can I prove that the Illuminati were more than a "boys' club"? The Illuminati want(ed) to instigate an international communist revolution. See my #4 source from the last round. Some boys' club!Con agrees the Jacobins did the Reign of Terror, but says they couldn't be the same as the Illuminati since the Illuminati were already done with. However, this goes back to the fact that Con didn't successfully refute my proof that they Illuminati were never really broken up, much less through internal disputes. Con says my sources (Robison and Barruel) hypothesize the Jacobins were influenced by Freemasons, but this is misleading. Barruel's thesis is that the Jacobins were Illuminati-Freemasons, and goes to great lengths to assure Freemasons that he's not accusing Masons in general of being bloodthirsty like Jacobins; he only accuses those Freemasons who are "Illuminized", that is to say, Freemasons who are also in the Illuminati, even if they don't officially call themselves Illuminati. Recall what I and Weishaupt said previously about the Illuminati changing its name and hiding in the guise of Freemasonry.Con says there's no proof the Illuminati infiltrated the Freemasons "post-breakup", but I already proved there was no actual breakup to speak of. The state where the Illuminati was founded, Bavaria, made them illegal, but there's no evidence this destroyed them, but proofs abound showing they changed their name and arose publicly in other nations, notably in France, where they instituted the Reign of Terror (some boys' club)!George Washington considered the Jacobins and the Illuminati to be pretty much the same thing: "I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the [Illuminati], or pernicious principles of the [Jacobins] (if they are susceptible of seperation)." Google means bulging/staring [eyes]. Just because Google says otherwise only proves they are being dishonest Illuminati. Besides, my theory explains both the name and the rainbow color with one topic: eyes. Rainbow is iris in Greek, and Barney Google had googly eyes. Con hasn't come up with such a simple explanation like "eyes" that explains both the name Google and the choice of rainbow font. "Because it looks cool" won't be a sufficiently simple and logical explanation, and also, Google is not a "play on the word" googol. That would be called a misspelling. Google is smart enough to know this, therefore, they are not telling us the truth; therefore, they are Illuminati; therefore, Illuminati confirmed.Con also fails to provide an equally simple and logical explanation for the choice of "in" as Linkedin's logo. My theory explains both Google and Linkedin: eyes. Con insists I haven't proven the founders of Juggle are in the Illuminati, but I have, with all their Illuminati symbolism and their installing an Illuminati member as moderator of the site, etc.Con satirizes my theory that the topic of "eyes" explains all the symbolism of DDO, Juggle, Google, Linkedin, airmax1227, etc. however you will note one thing about his satire: It's incoherent (he even says, "I jest.") He jokes about air being in the Illuminati, Airmax being an element, etc. so it's a false analogy to my own "eyes" hypothesis, which totally makes way more cents. It's not merely "amusing", like Con says. It's downright hilarious.More importantly, it is true and 100% correct.Con says Jews were banned from the Illuminati, yet I proved the founder of the Illuminati was a Jew so that's irrelevant. Also, lannan13 could be using a Jewish avatar as cover to throw people off; "Hey look I'm using a Jew as my avatar so I'm totally not Illuminati!" However, the Jew is Ayn Rand. Not only is she a woman, while lannan13 is a guy, but she's long since passed away, so nobody is going to be fooled into thinking lannan13 is the Jew Ayn Rand. In fact, this is so ridiculous that it pretty much proves lannan13 is in the Illuminati. #confirmedThe source for Jews being banned is bunk anyway. Sure, YYW said his name means "Yeah, yeah, whatever" but that's such a mundane and nonsensical explanation that it's definitely a trick to throw conspiracy-theorists off his scent. YYW is Y-Y-V-V is Y-H-V-H (obviously). Therefore, Illuminati confirmed.I do not need to provide further evidence that my opponent is in the Illuminati. His continued resistance to my accusations demonstrates a suspiciously adamant and defensive attitude, therefore we can be completely certain that he is indeed an Illuminatus. Or certain enough to vote Pro.Thanks for the debate! I appreciate the opportunity to debate an actual Illuminati member.