The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
frankfurter50
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Bryan Mullins: After Doing Research, There will be no Christmas.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
frankfurter50
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2017 Category: People
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 104855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (1)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

I recently done some research that would prove my point, which is there will be no Christmas. These searches are very discrete and very honest.

There will be no Christmas, here is the first source of research: https://www.google.com...

Here is the second source of research: https://www.google.com...

I would make one or two exceptions to the research I've done.
First one, some of these that say "Christmas" are either from a different country than America or they're fake news. All in all, there will be no more Christmas. There will never be any Christmas in America. I win the debate in real life. There will be no more children being slaughtered or ignored. There will be true peace which is no Christmas.

I await your next argument.
frankfurter50

Con

Your argument is fake because the two links you provide are for DECEMBER 2017. DECEMBER does not necessarily correlate with Christmas. DECEMBER is a month, CHRISTMAS is a holiday that exists within December. Here's a link I found:

https://www.google.com...

Christmas is a world renowned tradition and it will not be stopping anytime soon. I think you might be insane. If you are insane, then all your arguments are invalid. if Christmas was stopped, there would be much more news about it, and there would be an international public uproar. Besides, it isn't preventable, people can celebrate if they want to. There can't be an anti Christmas police force. In addition, this i not fake news or from foreign countries. One is from Portland, and another is about Disneyland. this can't be fake news. It's 100% verifiable. You can say anything is fake news. It isn't.
Debate Round No. 1
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

First, let me refute your link you showed me, I clicked on your link, I only found that the majority of these articles I'm seeing are only British, and rarely others are fake news. Christmas is no where near now or later in America. This argument is not fake. Apparently you don't really know what research is, here is it's definition:
"1. careful or diligent search.
2. studious inquiry or examination; especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.
3. The collecting of information about a particular subject." [1]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...

You only explain what Christmas is and blindly assume that It will never be stopped. You can't just believe everything you see as "news" like the one about Portland and Disneyland. You have some capitalization errors, and irrelevant arguments.
frankfurter50

Con

You're crazy. Christmas is going to happen this year, no matter how much of a party pooper you are. It will happen, just as it has happened for thousands of years. Christmas is unavoidable, it happens all the time. Here's a link:

https://www.google.com...

GOOGLE verifies it as an event. You can say anything is fake, but saying something is fake doesn't make it fake. Donald Trump calls things "Fake News" just because they contradict with his point of view. Same thing here. It's undeniable, Christmas is going to happen. I have diligently explained this as best I can. I have researched it. You can't deny that.

Tell you what, sir. Post a link that says it WON'T happen. You won't be able to, because every part of this is a big stinking lie. But go ahead, try to find your article or whatever. I'll be waiting. Have fun, ya lummox!
Debate Round No. 2
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

First, you have no real evidence to prove or suggest that "Christmas" has been there for thousands of years. You can search for it all you want but it is still fake news because it doesn't reflect America's point of view. "Tell you what, sir. Post a link that says it WON'T happen. You won't be able to, because every part of this is a big stinking lie." Your quote was irrelevant to the research I've done and the research you failed to do properly. Your link is still fake news because every time I search anything popular and industrial like
television, Christmas doesn't really show up as real news or any news.

NBC: https://www.google.com...

Also, your links also reference to mostly British or fake articles. You have a burden of proof by asserting that Christmas will never be stopped.
frankfurter50

Con

The Bryan Mullins logic is inherently flawed. Denial isn't a good way to win an argument, you've got to provide counterclaims and prove your point and stuff like that, or you're gonna lose. You're crazy. You must reside in some kind of mental institution. You once more posted a link that talks about December 2017 instead of Christmas 2017. None of your sources are legitimate. First, why not tell me, and everyone else, all about this new, insane law, that prohibits the existence of Christmas. Inform us about why it happened, if it will continue, and how it will be enforced. You said you did research on this thing. I don't see anything. Everywhere on the internet, there are sites that claim Christmas will happen, right here in America, anywhere you can think of, we're going to have Christmas. You accuse me for posting "fake" sources when you won't post any. Come ON, man. Give me something to work with. You're gonna lose. Tell us about this. Show us that it's real. Otherwise, you lose.
Debate Round No. 3
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

First, you still have the burden of proof that Christmas will happen in America. I counterclaim that you are seriously losing this debate because you failed to prove that Christmas is going to happen in America. My next counterclaim is that you have no comprehension of research, as I defined in one of my arguments, one of the definitions is a "careful and diligent search" you made a clumsy search and tried to counteract my sources with sources that are mostly fake or posted just because they're desperate for Christmas. You believe in these fake news articles, with your gullibility, you still fail to fill your burden of proof. How it will be banned is after all the Christians have died by being bombed for slaughtering kids for not believing in Christmas. Christmas will not happen because Americans believe that children deserve life and not to be slaughtered.

Here are a couple of video links:
[1] https://m.youtube.com...
[2] https://m.youtube.com...
frankfurter50

Con

You're crazy and your gory prophesies are an indication of your mental condition. What the hell are you talking about, huh? You're sick in the head.

https://www.google.com...

It says, right there, Christmas in America. You can see that from the first google result that comes up, Christmas in America, from Google themselves. There will be Christmas this year, and we're not gonna slaughter any kids. You have a dark and twisted mind. Both links you gave are ones you made YOURSELF and, I'll admit, are mediocre art, but they don't prove anything.

Voters, go ahead and vote for me. There is Christmas, and it's going to be the same, like it's been every year, and once Christmas does roll around, and if you voted for him, you'll be a real laughing stock, OK? Just vote for me. I'm the only one who makes any sense here.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
Unless there's a cannibalistic apocalypse, that is. Hoo HOO...
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 week ago
KostasT.1526
Whatever, I'm pretty much going to celebrate Christmas as usual.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
OOH, boy, once we get to December...

I wonder what you'll say then.

Tell me, how did you acquire these clairvoyant abilities?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I was right in real life, you will see how I'm right as we advance into December.

This debate doesn't count in real life.

Frankfurter50, you're gonna lose the debate in real life
I'm 100% sure that this debate was just to test my theory.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: KostasT.1526// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: arguments. Pro claimed that they had done research that indicates that there will be no Christmas. They showed their so-called research, the content of which was easily refuted by Con, by pointing out that a google search of "December 2017" with irrelevant search results did not prove anything. Pro attempted to defend their thesis by saying that their opponent's sources were British or fake, while there was in fact nothing to confirm it. Pro's research and the fulfillment of their BoP (as they were the one to make the basic claim) are yet to be seen. sources. Pro, in order to fulfill their BoP, cited two google search results which had nothing to do with their statements. They used a credible source, the Merriam Webster dictionary, but the reason had no relation with their arguments. They also linked to two videos from their own (see username) and not trustworthy youtube channel, which also proved nothing. continuation of RFD in the comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains every point allocation. While the reporter may disagree with some of the logic of this vote, that does not make it insufficient under the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
I think he might have been hitting the happy juice...
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 week ago
KostasT.1526
@BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
This is not even a debate. It is pure lunacy.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@KostasT.1526 Just because the con wins this debate doesn't necessarily mean he'll win the debate in real life
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@KostasT.1526 Just because the con wins this debate doesn't necessarily mean he'll win the debate in real life
Posted by KostasT.1526 2 weeks ago
KostasT.1526
RFD continuation:
On the other hand, Con also used google search results as sources, but intending to show their opponent the fallacies of their research method, therefore making their sources successful with regards to the purpose they were cited, contrary to Pro's irrelevant ones.
conduct. Con used certain unnecessary insults towards Pro ("Have fun, ya lummox!", "You're crazy. You must reside in some kind of mental institution." etc), whilst Pro did not show any remarkably offensive behaviour.
grammar/spelling. Apart from the ordinary number of mistakes concerning grammar and spelling, there was nothing serious at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KostasT.1526 2 weeks ago
KostasT.1526
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2frankfurter50Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments. Pro claimed that they had done research that indicates that there will be no Christmas. They showed their so-called research, the content of which was easily refuted by Con, by pointing out that a google search of "December 2017" with irrelevant search results did not prove anything. Pro attempted to defend their thesis by saying that their opponent's sources were British or fake, while there was in fact nothing to confirm it. Pro's research and the fulfillment of their BoP (as they were the one to make the basic claim) are yet to be seen. sources. Pro, in order to fulfill their BoP, cited two google search results which had nothing to do with their statements. They used a credible source, the Merriam Webster dictionary, but the reason had no relation with their arguments. They also linked to two videos from their own (see username) and not trustworthy youtube channel, which also proved nothing. continuation of RFD in the comments