The Instigator
SuperTrooper44
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Bryan Mullins: Christmas Should Be Banned

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...
SJM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2017 Category: People
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 325 times Debate No: 102595
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

SuperTrooper44

Pro

Since in this rant video: https://www.youtube.com...
Bryan Mullins says he is proud that the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children has been proven and the Christmas is a big distraction for murder.

Christmas cartoon icons like Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer, Frosty The Snowman, and Santa Claus are truly big distractions to distract your kids into believing lies and to distract children from the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children for not believing in it.
Dancing toys and women sexualizing themselves like the female dancing toys that sing "Santa Baby" is also one of their distraction techniques, singing, caroling, and kissing under the "mistletoe" are distraction techniques too.
Christmas should be banned because we should not have to be slaughtered for not believing in it.
We should have freedom of opinion for believing different but not to be killed

So, vote for pro.
SJM

Con

(1) Pro has the burden of proof, I just must show how pro hasn"t done a sufficient job in proving their side.

(2) The video is not inserted in place of Pro"s arguments. A debater cannot post a video and expect the opponent and the voters to watch all of it, and deduce what Pro is specifically talking about. Pro would have to explicitly state it. Therefore, the video is not considered an argument itself. If this were the case, I could post an hour-long video with 50 arguments, however we can clearly see this is abusive.

There is a crucial element missing from my opponent"s case, evidence.

For my opponent to win this debate, Pro would have to have sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When we look at Pro"s case, we find theories without any evidence. Mainly there"s no evidence for a distraction taking place, a distractor, nor the slaughtering of children by churches. My opponent has not met their burden. Thus we proceed with the status quo (neg).
Debate Round No. 1
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con points out Pro has the burden of proof, which he has not met in the debate itself. And videos shouldn't be arguments, which Con also notes. And unless Pro would like to tell me what arguments were made in the video, I'm not watching the whole video, since I've got better things to do. Anyways, since Pro fails to provide evidence for his claims, the arguments aren't convincing enough to fulfill the Burden of Proof, so arguments to Con by default. Neither side used reliable sources, as Pro's video doesn't contain evidence, and Con used no sources at all.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While it could be clearer why Pro has the burden of proof (simply deferring to a point made in the debate without explaining what was convincing about it is barely enough), it is clarified by the voter how Pro failed to meet that burden and why that matters. While the report asserts differently, this is a difference of opinion, and therefore not sufficient reason to remove this vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by PowerPikachu21 8 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Also, if you really want to convince me a conspiracy is true, make a 4 Round debate. It'll at least make you seem serious about your claims.
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
What? many people vote without RFD depending on if it's required.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 8 months ago
SuperTrooper44
@SJM yes it does, people don't just vote without RFD.
Posted by SJM 8 months ago
SJM
Does this debate have RFD required?
Posted by SuperTrooper44 8 months ago
SuperTrooper44
@SJM I'm waiting for you
Posted by SuperTrooper44 8 months ago
SuperTrooper44
@TrumpSupporter Christmas is not about giving, nor is it about cheer, joy, and singing, because those excuses people make today are nothing but distractions, it's truly a distraction technique that if you are a child, specifically age ranging from 1-7 years old, and if you don't believe in Christmas, you will be senselessly slaughtered.

Over 18,000,000 have been slaughtered since the 1998 release of "All Dogs Go To Heaven Christmas Carol"
What a shame that it's been proven, children should be free from religious and oppressive force.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 8 months ago
PowerPikachu21
SuperTrooper44SJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con points out Pro has the burden of proof, which he has not met in the debate itself. And videos shouldn't be arguments, which Con also notes. And unless Pro would like to tell me what arguments were made in the video, I'm not watching the whole video, since I've got better things to do. Anyways, since Pro fails to provide evidence for his claims, the arguments aren't convincing enough to fulfill the Burden of Proof, so arguments to Con by default. Neither side used reliable sources, as Pro's video doesn't contain evidence, and Con used no sources at all.