Instigator / Con

Mall

1389

rating

413

debates

44.55%

won

Topic

#2186

God and Santa

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 07.21.2020 09:19PM
Last updated date: 08.05.2020 09:18PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

oromagi

1922

rating

117

debates

97.44%

won

Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Please demonstrate how the two concepts are the same.
Believing in Santa Claus is likened to the belief in God.
How so?
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1

Mall

07.22.2020 11:14AM

Con

The description will serve as the first round.

oromagi

07.25.2020 01:09AM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

BELIEF in SANTA CLAUS SHARES CHARACTERISTICS in COMMON with BELIEF in YHWH

OBJECTION:

PRO has omitted PRO's R1 argument. CON calls this a tactical ambush by PRO: an effort to shift the burden for making an affirmative argument to CON, relieving PRO of the ordinary responsibility of the INSTIGATOR to provide an affirmative case against which the CONTENDER may defend. Which in turn shifts the perceived burden of proof to the CONTENDER.

IF PRO intended to make no R1 affirmative case, PRO should have made those intentions clear in the debate description, alerting potential CONTENDERS to the shifty maneuver and allowing the CONTENDER to refuse or else accept the challenge apprised of PRO's tactic and accept that point explicitly. CON calls lack of prior consent grounds for declaring PRO's R1 FORFEIT and CON asks VOTERS to treat PRO's R1 as such.

Furthermore, PRO asks for VOTERS' indulgence in the setting of terms and definitions which our INSTIGATOR has likewise failed to proffer for acceptance.

DEFINITIONS:

BELIEF [noun] is "mental acceptance of a claim as true"
SHARES [verb, third person singular] is "to have or use in common"
CHARACTERISTIC [noun] is "a distinguishing feature of a person or thing"
IN COMMON [prepositional phrase] is "shared with one or more others"
SANTA CLAUS (ST. NICHOLAS) [proper noun] is "a legendary character originating in Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved children on the night of Christmas Eve or during the early morning hours of Christmas Day. The modern character of Santa Claus was based on traditions surrounding the historical Saint Nicholas (a fourth-century Greek bishop and gift-giver of Myra), the British figure of Father Christmas, and the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas (himself also based on Saint Nicholas). Some maintain Santa Claus also absorbed elements of the Germanic god Wodan, who was associated with the pagan midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky."
YHWH [proper noun] is "the personal name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures"

BURDEN of PROOF:

WiKiPEDiA advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."

CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims.
The BURDEN of PROOF remains CON's in spite of CON's tactical forfeit.

PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that believing in Santa Claus is entirely unlike believing in YHWH.

R1DESCRIPTION:

OBJECTION: PRO's thesis lacks clarity. PRO's thesis is formulated as a question leaving no assertion to prove or disprove. Under the circumstances, PRO has reformulated the thesis into a debatable format and considers CON's R1 forfeit a tacit relinquishment of authority over thesis (traditionally the instigator's responsibility).

R1CON1:

CON has forfeited CON's R1.

R1PRO1: CHRISTIAN MYTHOS

Both St. Nick and YHWH are important figures in the Christian tradition.

YHWH is the first character to appear in the Christian Bible:

GENESIS 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

St. Nick "was an early Christian bishop of Greek descent from the maritime city of Myra in Asia Minor during the time of the Roman Empire. Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nicholas the Wonderworker. Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors, merchants, archers, repentant thieves, prostitutes, children, brewers, pawnbrokers, and students in various cities and countries around Europe. His reputation evolved among the faithful, as was common for early Christian saints, and his legendary habit of secret gift-giving gave rise to the traditional model of Santa Claus ("Saint Nick") through Sinterklaas."

R1CON2: LOW EVIDENCE

There are no surviving primary biographical sources documenting the lives and works either St. Nick or YHWH. The earliest reports on all deeds attributed to either figure are recorded centuries after the acts reported.

R1CON3: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

In spite of an absence of evidence, the physical traits of both figures have been described often and at length. Both physiognomies are very similar- a robust European male, older than middle aged but less than elderly, typically with a long white beard and a serene expression- an archetypal Medieval patriarch.

YHWH

REVELATION 1:14-15

"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

Biagio d'Antonio

https://www.google.com/search?q=biaggio+dantonio+god+the+father&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

St. Nick

Clement Clarke Moore

"His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples, how merry! / His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry! / His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, / And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow;"

http://jesuitjoe.blogspot.com/2007/12/notes-on-feast-of-st-nicholas-of-myra.html

R1CON4: MAGIC POWERS

Both Santa and YHWH are reputed to have magic powers that defy well-established physical limitations in our universe.

YHWH

GENESIS 1:3-5

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness/ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

EXODUS 12:29-30

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

St. Nick

"One story tells how during a terrible famine, a malicious butcher lured three little children into his house, where he killed them, placing their remains in a barrel to cure, planning to sell them off as ham. Nicholas, visiting the region to care for the hungry, saw through the butcher's lies and resurrected the pickled children by making the Sign of the Cross"

A VISIT from ST. NICHOLAS

"And laying his finger aside of his nose, /And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose; /He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, /And away they all flew like the down of a thistle."

R1CON5: OMNISCIENCE

Both figures are accorded astonishing powers of perception and cognizance.

YHWH

HEBREWS 4:13

"Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

PROVERBS 15:3

"The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

St. Nick

SANTA CLAUS is COMING to TOWN

"He see's you when your sleeping, / He knows when your awake, / He knows if you've been bad or good, / So be good for goodness sake / You better watch out, / You better not cry, / You better not pout, / I'm telling you why, / Santa Claus is comin' to town."

R1CON6: SACRIFICE

Both figures are typically accorded a sacrifice in connection with periodic visitations.

YHWH

LEVITICUS 23:18

"And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the Lord, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Lord."

St. Nick

"In the United States and Canada, children traditionally leave a glass of milk and a plate of cookies intended for Santa to consume; in Britain and Australia, sherry or beer, and mince pies are left instead. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, it is common for children to leave him rice porridge with sugar and cinnamon instead. In Ireland it is popular to leave Guinness or milk, along with Christmas pudding or mince pies."

CONCLUSION:

CON has yet to offer any argument showing that believing in Santa Claus is unlike believing in YHWH, while PRO has offered at least six similarities in belief disproving CON's thesis.

PRO looks forward to CON's R2 argument.

SOURCES:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/share#English

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/characteristic

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_common

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Jehovah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29#Holder_of_the_burden

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201%3A14-16&version=KJV

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43171/a-visit-from-st-nicholas

http://jesuitjoe.blogspot.com/2007/12/notes-on-feast-of-st-nicholas-of-myra.html

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2012&version=KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43171/a-visit-from-st-nicholas

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+4%3A13&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+15%3A3&version=KJV

https://www.google.com/search?q=he+knows+when+you+are+sleeping+lyrics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+23%3A18&version=KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

Round 2

Mall

07.25.2020 12:26PM

Con

So to make this short, nice and simple, let's start with this first question.

This is how we know what a true fairy tale is.

According to the claim of Santa Claus, has this character been proven to be made up?

The claim is by the way is that this individual delivers gifts to children's homes all over the world in one night.

oromagi

07.25.2020 05:39PM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

BELIEF in SANTA CLAUS SHARES CHARACTERISTICS in COMMON with BELIEF in YHWH

OBJECTION:

PRO has made no response to CON's objection

DEFINITIONS:

By lack of objection, PRO accepts all definitions

BURDEN of PROOF:

By lack of objection, PRO accepts full burden of proof.

PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that believing in Santa Claus is entirely unlike believing in YHWH.

R1DESCRIPTION:

CON has made no objection to PRO's reformulation of thesis for clarity and debateability.

R1CON1:

CON has forfeited CON's R1.

R2CON2:

According to the claim of Santa Claus, has this character been proven to be made up?

This was answered in R1.
The answer is mixed.

St. Nicholas was a real person. We still have his bones and other archeological evidence.
Many details are clearly untrue. For example, we now with certainty that St. Nicholas does not live at the North Pole

R2PRO1: CHRISTIAN MYTHOS

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO2: LOW EVIDENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO3: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO4: MAGIC POWERS

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO5: OMNISCIENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO6: SACRIFICE

CON dropped this argument.

R2PRO7: OMNIPRESCENCE

Both YHWH and St. Nick claim to be able to be in more than one place at the same time.

YHWH

PSALM 139:7-10

"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? / If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. / If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; / Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me."

PROVERBS 15:3

"The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."

St Nick

WASHINGTON POST

"Let’s say that each house is an average of one mile from the next, a figure that’s obviously too small in eastern Russia — but obviously too large in New York City. That means that Santa has to travel 395,830,485 miles over the course of the night to hit each household. (This is excluding his trip to and from the North Pole which he could probably do during the day since he would mostly be flying over the empty Pacific.) Covering 396 million miles in 35.25 hours means traveling at 11.2 million mph, even without incorporating the time spent at each house. He would have 321 microseconds to get from one house to the next, on average, a duration that is about half as long as the period of time a baseball spends in contact with the bat. It’s not speed-of-light fast, but it’s 1-percent-of-speed-of-light fast, which is still very fast. If we include the tasks he has to perform at each house (down chimney, drop Rubik’s cube, swig milk, leave) we quickly see how impossible it becomes. All of that can’t take even one second in total — he has only 321 microseconds for each stop and travel to the next one! If he spends 200 microseconds dropping off the gifts, he’s left with 121 microseconds to travel the mile to the next house, about as fast as a neutron."

CONCLUSION:

CON has yet to offer any argument showing that believing in Santa Claus is unlike believing in YHWH, while PRO has offered at least seven similarities in belief disproving CON's thesis.

PRO looks forward to CON's R3 argument.

SOURCES:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:7-10&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2015:3&version=KJV

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/12/20/breathtaking-scale-santa-clauss-task-christmas-eve/

Round 3

Mall

07.25.2020 09:49PM

Con

"The answer is mixed.

St. Nicholas was a real person. We still have his bones and other archeological evidence.

Many details are clearly untrue. For example, we now with certainty that St. Nicholas does not live at the North Pole"

This is all we need to prove the premise false or true. Nothing else has to be looked at. I don't want complications here , it's not worth it .

To move forward, you can make an "unmixed" , simple response to this question. This is a straightforward inquiry here to separate believing in Santa Claus existing from believing in God existing.

It simply lies in the evidence. See you have to find some angle to make a good argument for yourself. I asked you about the claim of Santa Claus, not an origin story. Let's not be disingenuous here. Do we believe in George Washington or do we know he once existed? If the context is "belief" here, we're talking about something that is questionable, possibly mythical and is accepted as true without evidence.

When you Google to define Santa Claus, the explanation is concluded that it has been said or claimed that this person delivers toys. So that is the claim to who this character is. Whenever we mention Santa, Christmas, reindeer, North Pole,etc. , we're thinking of this figure according to the claim. I understand you want to find an angle in order to try to get around the premise but I didn't ask where this idea of Santa Claus came from. You can start off with an origin story but you have to consider to conclude by the end of the day or end of your answer, who this person is now, what is he suppose to represent.

Remember , the context has to do with belief, not an acknowledgement of history. So what is there to believe in? Existence of someone delivering gifts as the claim is describing.

So has that part been proven to be made up? Yes or no please, last time.

oromagi

07.26.2020 03:03AM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

BELIEF in SANTA CLAUS SHARES CHARACTERISTICS in COMMON with BELIEF in YHWH

PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that believing in Santa Claus is entirely unlike believing in YHWH.

R1DESCRIPTION:

CON has made no objection to PRO's reformulation of thesis for clarity and debateability.

R1CON1:

CON has forfeited CON's R1.

R3CON2:

According to the claim of Santa Claus, has this character been proven to be made up?

This was answered in R1.
The answer is mixed.

St. Nicholas was a real person. We still have his bones and other archeological evidence.
Many details are clearly untrue. For example, we now with certainty that St. Nicholas does not live at the North Pole

This is all we need to prove the premise false or true. Nothing else has to be looked at. I don't want complications here , it's not worth it .

OBJECTION: PRO has offered 7 arguments establishing similarities in beliefs in St. Nick and YHWH. IF CON cannot successfully refute all these arguments CON should expect to lose this debate. CON is no position to ask that "nothing else has to be looked at" in the 3rd round of a 4 round debate.

To move forward, you can make an "unmixed" , simple response to this question. This is a straightforward inquiry here to separate believing in Santa Claus existing from believing in God existing.

Again, CON is no position to dictate the format of PRO's arguments. Let's recall that CON offered no terms in the description of this debate and so forfeited any opportunity to qualify the content of PRO's arguments in later rounds.

It simply lies in the evidence.

To what does the pronoun "it" refer in this sentence?
What evidence? So far, CON has asked PRO two questions and offered no evidence of any sort.

See you have to find some angle to make a good argument for yourself.

For the sake of worthwhile engagement, PRO encourages CON to try doing the same.

I asked you about the claim of Santa Claus, not an origin story.

CON asked how is belief in Santa Claus like belief in God?

PRO sees no reason not to suppose that the origin story of either or both figures is entirely fair game.

Let's not be disingenuous here.

Agreed

All of PRO's arguments have been presented in a frank and forthright fashion.
CON has failed to offer a single assertion of fact regarding St Nick or YHWH with only one round left in the debate. CON should try just stating plainly why he thinks that believing in St. Nick is entirely unlike believing in YHWH so that PRO can refute that assertion.

Do we believe in George Washington or do we know he once existed? If the context is "belief" here, we're talking about something that is questionable, possibly mythical and is accepted as true without evidence.

Let's recall that PRO defined BELIEF in R1 as "mental acceptance of a claim as true." I believe George Washington once existed because I am convinced by the preponderance of historical sources regarding that claim. I don't have to think Washington's existence is questionable or mythological in order to believe Washington existed. I would not believe in George Washington without evidence.
KNOWLEDGE is defined in philosophy as a "justified true belief."

All knowledge therefore is also belief.
So, we know and we also believe that George Washington once existed. Knowledge does not preclude belief. Knowledge requires belief.

When you Google to define Santa Claus, the explanation is concluded that it has been said or claimed that this person delivers toys. So that is the claim to who this character is. Whenever we mention Santa, Christmas, reindeer, North Pole,etc. , we're thinking of this figure according to the claim. I understand you want to find an angle in order to try to get around the premise but I didn't ask where this idea of Santa Claus came from. You can start off with an origin story but you have to consider to conclude by the end of the day or end of your answer, who this person is now, what is he suppose to represent.

Remember , the context has to do with belief, not an acknowledgement of history. So what is there to believe in?

The context is the similarity of beliefs in St. Nick and YHWH. We need not concern ourselves with whether belief in either is particularly justified.

Belief in St. Nicholas is easier to justify than belief in YHWH precisely because of the historical and archeological evidence CON seems eager to dismiss.

However, let's agree that many of the more legendary and magical claims regarding either of these figures are difficult to reconcile with our knowledge of the physical world.

Existence of someone delivering gifts as the claim is describing. So has that part been proven to be made up? Yes or no please, last time.

No. Neither proven nor made up.

MIchael the Archimandrite's 9th century biography, Life of Saint Nicholas, makes many claims regarding St. Nick's famous gift giving.

For example, "Nicholas heard of a devout man who had once been wealthy but had lost all of his money due to the "plotting and envy of Satan." The man could not afford proper dowries for his three daughters. This meant that they would remain unmarried and probably, in absence of any other possible employment, be forced to become prostitutes. Hearing of the girls' plight, Nicholas decided to help them, but, being too modest to help the family in public (or to save them the humiliation of accepting charity), he went to the house under the cover of night and threw a purse filled with gold coins through the window opening into the house. The father immediately arranged a marriage for his first daughter, and after her wedding, Nicholas threw a second bag of gold through the same window late at night. "
"According to Michael the Archimandrite's account, after the second daughter was married, the father stayed awake for at least two "nights" and caught Saint Nicholas in the same act of charity toward the third daughter. The father fell on his knees, thanking him, and Nicholas ordered him not to tell anyone about the gifts. The scene of Nicholas's secret gift-giving is one of the most popular scenes in Christian devotional art, appearing in icons and frescoes from across Europe. Although depictions vary depending on time and place, Nicholas is often shown wearing a cowl while the daughters are typically shown in bed, dressed in their nightclothes. "

The historicity of this incident is disputed.

Adam C. English argues for a historical kernel to the legend, noting the story's early attestation as well as the fact that no similar stories were told about any other Christian saints

R3PRO1: CHRISTIAN MYTHOS

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO2: LOW EVIDENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO3: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO4: MAGIC POWERS

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO5: OMNISCIENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO6: SACRIFICE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO7: OMNIPRESCENCE

CON dropped this argument.

CONCLUSION:

At the end of R3, CON has failed to forward a single assertion of fact. CON has only asked PRO three questions:

How is believing in Santa Clause like believing in YHWH?

PRO has answered this question abundantly.

Is Santa Clause proven or made up?

Neither. LIke George Washington there is good evidence that such a famous and influential man existed. However, many of the legends that grew up around these figures are implausible and impossible to verify.

Is the claim that Santa Claus gave gifts proven or made up?

Neither, although some scholars of Christian antiquities argue that there is some veracity to the claim.

CON has entirely ignored PRO's point to an extent sufficient to undermine any appearance of argument in good faith.

CON has yet to offer any argument showing that believing in Santa Claus is unlike believing in YHWH, while PRO has offered at least seven similarities in belief disproving CON's thesis and answered all three of PRO's questions.

PRO looks forward to CON's conclusion.

SOURCES:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas#Generosity_and_travels

https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas/real-person/adam-english

Round 4

Mall

07.27.2020 10:45AM

Con

" Is the claim that Santa Claus gave gifts proven or made up?

Neither, although some scholars of Christian antiquities argue that there is some veracity to the claim."

What is the evidence that a man, not a God, a MAN, IS DELIVERING GIFTS TO CHILDREN'S HOMES ALL OVER THE WORLD IN DECEMBER INSTEAD OF THEIR PARENTS?

IF YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT THE PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THIS ENDS THE DEBATE RIGHT HERE.

You HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE. ALL YOU'VE SAID IS WHAT SCHOLARS ARGUE.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? NOTHING ELSE IS WORTH ANYTHING UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE THAT .

PLEASE NO MORE DELAY. NOW WHAT YOU'RE UP AGAINST IS A NUMEROUS COLLECTION OF MERCHANTS THAT HOUSE RECEIPTS OF THEIR INVENTORY. THESE ARE SALES EACH YEAR GLOBALLY.

It seems that you're being coy and trying to hide behind something that's nothing of the debate. Anything that you have evidence for means you know the thing to be true, not believe it to be true.

Separate a character based on a historical figure. The debate is nothing to do with a historical basis. These are two different things. We're only dealing with a fabricated character based on a historical entity.

The belief in Santa Claus delivering toys that has been DISPROVEN is not like the belief in God existing for this has not been proven or falsified.

oromagi

07.29.2020 09:18PM

Pro

Thanks, Mall.

BELIEF in SANTA CLAUS SHARES CHARACTERISTICS in COMMON with BELIEF in YHWH

PRO interprets CON's resolution to mean that CON must prove that believing in Santa Claus is entirely unlike believing in YHWH.

R1DESCRIPTION:

CON has made no objection to PRO's reformulation of thesis for clarity and debateability.

R1CON1:

CON has forfeited CON's R1.

R4CON2:

This is all we need to prove the premise false or true. Nothing else has to be looked at. I don't want complications here , it's not worth it .
OBJECTION: PRO has offered 7 arguments establishing similarities in beliefs in St. Nick and YHWH. IF CON cannot successfully refute all these arguments CON should expect to lose this debate. CON is no position to ask that "nothing else has to be looked at" in the 3rd round of a 4 round debate.

CON made no reply to PRO’s OBJECTION to CON’s attempts to set terms in R3 of a 4 round debate. CON has the must prove that believing in Santa Claus is entirely unlike believing in YHWH.

I asked you about the claim of Santa Claus, not an origin story.
CON asked how is belief in Santa Claus like belief in God?
PRO sees no reason not to suppose that the origin story of either or both figures is entirely fair game.

CON ignored this argument.

Let's recall that PRO defined BELIEF in R1 as "mental acceptance of a claim as true." I believe George Washington once existed because I am convinced by the preponderance of historical sources regarding that claim. I don't have to think Washington's existence is questionable or mythological in order to believe Washington existed. I would not believe in George Washington without evidence.
KNOWLEDGE is defined in philosophy as a "justified true belief."
All knowledge therefore is also belief.
So, we know and we also believe that George Washington once existed. Knowledge does not preclude belief. Knowledge requires belief.

CON ignored this argument.

However, let's agree that many of the more legendary and magical claims regarding either of these figures are difficult to reconcile with our knowledge of the physical world.

CON made no reply.

R4CON3:

What is the evidence that a man, not a God, a MAN, IS DELIVERING GIFTS TO CHILDREN'S HOMES ALL OVER THE WORLD IN DECEMBER INSTEAD OF THEIR PARENTS?

“NORAD Tracks Santa is an annual Christmas-themed program that starts on December first, but the actual Santa-tracking starts on midnight of December 23. It is a community outreach function of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and has been held annually since 1955. Every year on Christmas Eve, NORAD claims to track the mythical character Santa Claus leaving the North Pole as he is said to journey around the world on his mission to deliver presents to children”
Many respected News outlets report on these deliveries and remark on Santa’s progress.
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/norads-santa-tracker-picks-up-saint-nick-as-he-departs-north-pole

IF YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT THE PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THIS ENDS THE DEBATE RIGHT HERE.

The Burden of Proof is entirely CON’s here as instigator and maker of the claim that God and Santa are unalike. PRO’s burden is to disprove CON. PRO is not required to prove or disprove any part of St Nick or YHWH’s biography, only to show that CON is quite mistaken when CON asserts that the two are in no way similar. As we have seen, there are many similarities.

You HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE. ALL YOU'VE SAID IS WHAT SCHOLARS ARGUE.

Scholarship is often a fine source of evidence. Is there any scholarship available supporting CON’s position that belief in St Nick and YHWH are not similar?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? NOTHING ELSE IS WORTH ANYTHING UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE THAT.

Again, CON never seemed to absorb that the Burden of Proof was his.

PLEASE NO MORE DELAY. NOW WHAT YOU'RE UP AGAINST IS A NUMEROUS COLLECTION OF MERCHANTS THAT HOUSE RECEIPTS OF THEIR INVENTORY. THESE ARE SALES EACH YEAR GLOBALLY.

Which Merchants? CON has failed to provide any receipts. How would these receipts show that belief in St Nick is never similar to YHWH?

It seems that you're being coy and trying to hide behind something that's nothing of the debate. Anything that you have evidence for means you know the thing to be true, not believe it to be true.

Because CON failed to read PRO’s counter arguments in R3CON2, CON remains unaware that knowledge requires belief. Showing belief does not disprove knowledge.

Separate a character based on a historical figure. The debate is nothing to do with a historical basis. These are two different things. We're only dealing with a fabricated character based on a historical entity.

As I have argued both figures share a substantial amount of likely fabrication in their story line. CON has no grounds on to try to make the debate terms narrower- CON’s missed the opportunity to define terms in DEFINITIONS and R1.

The belief in Santa Claus delivering toys that has been DISPROVEN is not like the belief in God existing for this has not been proven or falsified.

CON’s first and only argument comes in the last sentence of the final round. CON wants to argue (without one scrap of evidence) that conventional wisdom disproves St Nick but fails to disprove YHWH- therefore different. But CON’s thesis was NOT that Santa was false and YHWH was true, CON’s thesis was that the beliefs in both were not alike when in fact belief in Santa is quite similar to belief in YHWH in at least seven respects. PRO argued in R1 that neither figure’s existence enjoyed much factual evidence, so this is an aspect of belief that both hold in common, forwarding CON’s argument.

R3PRO1: CHRISTIAN MYTHOS

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO2: LOW EVIDENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO3: PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO4: MAGIC POWERS

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO5: OMNISCIENCE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO6: SACRIFICE

CON dropped this argument.

R3PRO7: OMNIPRESCENCE

CON dropped this argument.

CONCLUSION:

PRO waited until the final round to make one lame argument- Santa is not real while God is real. CON offered no evidence that St Nick is not real or evidence that YHWH is real, CON simply asserted the argument as fact in summation. Since belief does require evidence, CON’s argument must fail. Just like St Nick, a believer in YHWH requires faith and not knowledge.

CON has entirely ignored PRO's point to an extent sufficient to undermine any appearance of argument in good faith.

CON failed to offer any argument showing that believing in Santa Claus is unlike believing in YHWH, while PRO has offered at least seven similarities in belief disproving CON's thesis and answered all three of PRO's questions.

PRO asks VOTERS to award ARGUMENTS to PRO

Thanks to Mall for instigating this debate.

Thanks to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE PRO!

SOURCES:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD_Tracks_Santa

fauxlaw

07.25.2020 04:32PM

-->

@RationalMadman

Yes, indeed I did misrepresent Pro and Con. It's just that over 90% of debates, Pro is the instigator, and I do, at times, succumb to convention. Just more games by the true Con; games that are no favors to the reversal of roles to the instigator. To oromagi, my apologies. To R-adman, my tyhanks, although thehungry dog reference is, in fact a correct analogy.

RationalMadman

07.25.2020 04:43AM

-->

@fauxlaw

When you realise which side is Pro and which side is Con, the arrogant and insulting tone you typed that with must taste bitter, 'hungry dog'.

fauxlaw

07.25.2020 02:40AM

-->

@Mall

@oromagi

An r1 total failure by Pro, a duplicate mistake of another debate vote I've just offered. Caution to Pro to cease this nonsense. It does not help your cause. And your total lack of sourcing does not help you, either. Do some research and prove your points by scholarship greater than your own. Neither does the description's first paragraph; a load of obvious drivel unnecessary to explain. By contrast, a relentless r1 success by Con. I look forward to the remaining rounds like a hungry dog in the face of a next meal.

fauxlaw

08.02.2020 03:27AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Argument: Con effectively waived r1, claiming the Description sufficed for that round, but the description offered no argument, but merely the proposal of the debate with no prior notice of intent to do so. Further, as the proposal was worded as an instigator taking the Pro side of the argument, not as a contender would phrase it, making the instigator's preferred role confusing. Pro presented several arguments in favor of the proposition as worded, and added more arguments in subsequent rounds. Con never successfully rebutted any of Pro's arguments. Points to Pro.

Sources: Con offered no sources whatsoever to substantiate weak arguments. Pro offered supporting sources in all rounds. Points to Pro

S&G: tie, though Pro offered so much more opportunity to have S&G issues, but did not.

Conduct: This was a tie until r4 when Con became frustrated and charged Pro has not offered any evidence to support the Pro argument when, in fact, it is Con 'who had not offered evidence. Pro's evidence abounds. Con's is non-existent. Con's failure of personal ownership of this charge is poor conduct. Point to Pro

Barney

08.02.2020 01:13AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Overkill. Way too much overkill!

Pro argues believing in one is akin to believing in the other, making six different contentions for metrics of this (key thing being all knowing deity rewarding and punishing mankind) which were all dropped by con. Con tries to shift the burden onto pro proving that Santa actually exists (I admittedly missed how this would prove one is not like the other)...

I would give pro sources for NORAD, but that only came up in the final round after con had no opportunity to respond. As is, the comparison between Santa Clause is Coming To Town and multiple passages from the bible, strongly support it such that con had zero response.

S&G: I'm actually leaving tied. Pro does better on this due to con's continued abuse of all caps, but frustration is more understandable in this case (con you should seriously use a low character limit if you're going to keep arguing in this style).