The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

I will now offer some rebuttals to my adversaries remarks. Rebuttal 1"Now, I understand that you think the Illuminati doesn't exist, but you're proving that they can exist. Also, I understand that you want me to prove based on actual evidence that the Illuminati doesn't not and can not exist. That's impossible. You can't prove with actual evidence that something doesn't exist. It's impossible with anything."Then you should have worded this debate to fit so. When you claim they "do not exist", you are saying that you can prove this without a doubt. You are also taking on the BOP to show this. With the topic at hand, you are arguing a negative. Much like the concept or arguing a God. It may have been better if you said, they probably do not exist, or it is a logical assumption to conclude they do not exist. This is not the case however, you claimed they in fact do no exist. Thus the BOP is on you to demonstrate this fact. My job is to show that it is a possibility they do. Rebuttal 2"Theory started out in 2009. All of those celebrities who are using those symbols are mostly celebrities that made it famous during or after 2009. Most of the celebrities that use those symbol started using them during of after 2009 (with the exception of Marilyn Manson and others). It doesn't make sense that all these celebrities start using these symbols RIGHT AFTER this theory comes out, unless they were trying to capitalize on the easy publicity."This is also a theory. Literally a gap argument most would say. Because this symbol starting being used at the time the theory was shown, it is a way to capitalize on money. you are inferring this from an a + b = c argument. The issue with this is that for it to be accurate and not just an assumption, there must be iron clad facts that make up A and B. The theory itself came out at that time, but what is to say if it was not a conspiracy theory, and the Illuminati was actually formed during that time frame. Then using the same process by which you have chose to use, I could logically conclude that they are doing the sign to show that they are members of it. A(Illuminati theory came in to place) + B(sign started showing up) = C( Illuminati exist), which is the same line of logic you used to arrive at your conclusion. Thus I have demonstrated that it is a possibility, and you have just offered up a theory to support your BOP with no evidence. Rebuttal 3"My theory is: What if the government came up with the Illuminati theory simply so the head figures (ex. Barack Obama) in this country won't be blamed for the destruction that occurs within out country? If you think about it, think about the thousands of decomposable body-bags that are located in a field in Georgia. It doesn't take much thought to understand what the government has going on there. If they kill millions of civilians and get caught, it'll be a disaster for this country. However, if the "Illuminati" who actually doesn't exist did it, than it isn't the fault of the United States. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It isn't the congress's fault. It is the fault of the "Illuminati""This could be a working theory, but the fact is just that. It is a theory, and it is no different than saying the corrupt controlling group that is the Illuminati do in fact exist. You arrived at it using own logic and applying it to the situation. Point being is that this theory is no different than the one you are trying to disprove. It has no facts to support it, and you are using the a+b=c argument again. I have shown how that can work both ways. While it is a possibility there is not evidence to support this claim so it is irrelevant to you in your pursuit to meet your BOP. I will now reform some of my contentionsContention 1While pro has show that it is possible that the signs we see are just a way to market money, he has provided no evidence to support this claim. With this being the case, I have shown that it is possible to arrive at the same conclusion and assume the Illuminati does not exist. Without facts to support his claim, he has not met his BOP while I have shown reasonable doubt and demonstrated that there is a possibility the do exist. Contention 2He did not even address my statement that the Illuminati itself could be a metaphor for corporate america. I even have shown some evidence and videos from people talking about this as well. So even if i were to use a=b=c in this case, the a and b are backed with evidence which strengthens my assumption. He has not addressed this at all.In conclusion.My adversary has offered up multiple theories as to show why the may not exist, but this is the same logic that he is trying to disprove. He has offered up no facts to show that this origination "does not" exist. Remember his job is to show they do not exist and do so with evidence, and my job is to provide reasonable doubt. I have met my challenge, why pro still has yet to even demonstrate a remote step toward meeting his BOP.