The Lizard Illuminati is false

I thank Lexus for his argument, and with that, I'll defend my case, and refute his. Defense: The need for evidence; "David Icke, he and I both claim, made his claim within good faith." So if you don't have any evidence, then how do you make a claim within good faith? If something is true, then there must be evidence of it. You can't just say "Pink unicorns exist!", and they exist. You need evidence to make a claim. So why does David Icke believe in the Reptilians? He needs evidence. "His conspiracy theory is a good faith-based claim based on past ideas and so on ... so it must be at least somewhat true." He based it off of past ideas indeed. The question is, though: are these past ideas sufficient evidence? Again, Lack of evidence is lack of belief. And according to the social lens, lack of belief is lack of existence of that something you don't believe. Disproving the Social Lens; "Your Christopher Columbus example is not useful to this debate at all. One: it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat" Mainstream is basically, the majority. The majority of people believe the Lizard Illuminati is false, so does this mean it's false? Let's take a look at Con's 2nd point on the matter; "Two: the Earth is both flat and round -- those that had the belief that the Earth is flat were correct! Those that thought it was round were correct!" So what your saying is if I believe something to be correct, it is correct? We seem to be at an impasse. Argument: Point 3: Does the Reptilian clan exist? My Christopher Columbus example was relevant, since people believed two different realities (flat earth and round earth). In this debate, we're discussing different realities (one with the Reptilians [Con], and one without the Reptilians [Pro]). Con says the Earth is both round and flat, because of the Social Lens. This means because I believe the Reptilians don't exist, that means it should be true. However, because Con believes the Lizards exist, that is true. Which reality do we live in? Recall what Con said "it was not mainstream to think that the earth was flat". Majority rules, according to Con. I'm pretty sure the majority of people on this planet don't believe the conspiracy to be true. Since mainstream says the Lizards don't exist, that must be true. If not, here's some questions I want answered: - If they do exist, then does the existence override mainstream? If so, why? - If the majority doesn't decide what is true, then what does? - If it is the self which decides what is true, then I can just claim they don't exist in good belief (since that's what most people says anyways, and Con hasn't convinced me otherwise), and win. Or the voters vote whomever they want, because that is the side they believe in. - If it isn't the majority or the self which decides what is true, then what does? And I demand an explanation, of course. - Assuming they do exist, why does David Icke believe the Reptilians exist? On what grounds does HE believe this to be true? If the voters buy the evidence (although I doubt Con would show evidence), they may vote for Con. If there is no evidence, nor a convincing argument, that makes the voters think they do exist, then feel free to vote Pro. I would like Lexus to answer these questions. With that, what does she say?