The Instigator
hosslay
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else

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 7 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,255 times Debate No: 28033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

hosslay

Pro

Christmas should be called Christmas and nothing else. I don't understand the arguments about droping Christmas and saying happy holidays. Christmas is what it is and always has been, so why are the people that fight it so much scared of it.
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate and wish good luck to my opponent.

1. Religion aspect
In America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.
Debate Round No. 1
hosslay

Pro

Ill make this as short as I can, and start with a question for you. Why should we be worried about offending Jews,Muslims, or atheists when some of them (mostly atheists) has tried to get rid of saying marry Christmas, and don't give a crap about offending the ones who say it or celebrate it. For example when a school took kids to see marry Christmas Charlie brown as a field trip in little rock, ark and a group of atheists complained and sayed students should not be exposed to shows with Christian themes. That's a forced religion. But its very simple if atheists don't like it they don't have to say it, or celebrate it, same goes for the rest.
lannan13

Con

Response
To answer my opponents question on forced religion there is nothing in Charlie Brown's Christmas that has to actually do with Christianity. This is just going to see a play.

Contention 1
As I've gone on that religion plays an important part in America such as much of its foundation. Pro drops the fact that it might be offensive to other students and people of different religions if they are forced to say Merry Christmas.

Contention 2 Constitutional
What Pro is proposing is unconstitutional for the fact that in the 1st amendment it states that religion is to be free from law (separation of church and state). For this fact it would be illegal to pass a law that states no one can say happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 2
hosslay

Pro

With all do respect. You said Charlie brown has nothing do do with Christians and your right so ask yourself one question. why would atheists push so hard for these kids not to go go watch marry CHRISTMAS Charlie brown. Just in case you did not notice I capitalized it for you.

I'm not saying anything about making it a law for marry Christmas to be said by anyone. I have no clue were you are getting that from

And you were also talking about the separation or church and state. first lets define what makes up the church, and that's religion. There is many deff. for religion but ill name one. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Ill break it down the best I can. a set of beliefs (the word atheism originated from the Greek atheos meaning without gods) This is a belief and practice. so were is the separation of church and state when it comes to them pushing there religion on everyone else
by our amendments they should not be able to do what they are
lannan13

Con

I realize it is called Christmas, but that doesn't make it Christian, as believe it or not Christmas started out as a pagen holiday. http://www.simpletoremember.com...,

I brought this up for the fact it is what you are suggesting that it should be Christmas not happy holidays. Doing so the U.S.A. would have to pass a law stating that, but that is Unconstitutional.

This would be true but there is no Church of the Atheists. So forcing atheism on laws is actually a good thing, this was proved since many of our first presidents were Quakers (Society of friends.) They pushed this policy and wanted everyone to get along. Under the theories of Quakerism everyone should get along with hugs and be happy.

Extend across all my other point, please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Jeez MERRY MERRY MERRY MERRY it's isn't marry that is my moms name. GRAMMAR AND SPELLING GOES TO CON
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I get it now, thank you. It's just a freaking movie, lol, unlike those gingerbread cookies...:O
Posted by hosslay 4 years ago
hosslay
My point about Charlie is this. And illbreak it down.
1.The title of this movie is Marry Christmas Charlie Brown.
2.Atheists do not like the word Christmas.
3.Atheists got mad becouse a group of school kids were going to watch Marry CHRISTmas Charlie Brown.
4.And your rite about the greek celibration, however it was not Christmas.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Fascinating and brief debate.

1) CON's spelling and grammar was clearly better.
2) CON's point, divorcing the holiday from any sort of religious meaning, was consistent and irrefutable by PRO.
3) I have no idea where PRO was going with the charlie brown example.
4) CON's source was disturbing. I swear I will never eat another man-shaped cookie again.

Well argued, CON.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
" The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival"s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season)."

I will never eat another gingerbread cookie. Ever.
Posted by hosslay 4 years ago
hosslay
I agree with your comment. But what I am debating is politically correctness in the since of saying marry Christmas. I guess in a way it has something to do with religion, but there are people out there that will steer clear of saying marry Christmas, and say happy holidays. I want the views of these people.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
Saturnalia, Yuletide, Christmas, Winter solstice celebration-- all of the same breed. Taken from something else is the exact meaning I'm aiming to portray.

Yeah of course, there is a battle for Satanism as well but not on a level that can be seen as an actual opponent of the opposite. I have never heard of anyone say they want to do away with Christmas, altogether. I'm convinced it is a viewpoint in the extreme minority, in respect to total numbers.

Are you intending this debate to be about whether or not Christmas in the sense of religious tradition (Nativity scenes etc.) should be allowed on government property or recognized as a federal holiday?
Posted by hosslay 4 years ago
hosslay
Christmas is not borrowed it was taked from rome by christians when it was called saturnalia. They took it to celebrate the birth of jesus. and there is is a war on it with alot of people and i wont to know why. Baybe its the word christ. but im shure we will find out.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
Christmas has not always been the same thing. It is a borrowed tradition, from a borrowed tradition. There is no war on Christmas & as Jon Stewart points out rather well, Christmas is growing & has now gotten so big that it is eating other holidays (Black Friday turning into Black Thursday, also known as Thanksgiving).

In respects to happy holidays V.S. Merry Christmas, it isn't that people don't like Christmas. Happy holidays stems from the acknowledgement that the celebration of Kwanzaa, Christmas, Hanukkah & New Years are all within 2 weeks of each other. Thus, happy holidays is the more encompassing phrase.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: See comment
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - I think RoyLatham missed that Christmas was NOT originally called Christmas before it became a religious holiday.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con as Pro seemed to be overly-aggresive. Arguments to Con as his separation of Church/State claim holds. The state advocating a bill Pro proposed would violate the constitution. Con's argument of respecting other religous beliefs holds also.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The refusal to say "Christmas" is fake outrage. Pro is right that not harm is done by using the traditional name. Con actually adds weight to the arguments that the name is traditional and not religious by citing non-Christian tradition. Everybody in the word recognizes a Christmas tree as a "Christmas tree." Only a few progressives feign offense.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 wins with the point that it would be unconstitutional. Agree with Heineken that not much effort was made on either side.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
hosslaylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The English language found few friends here, but I always try to award S&G, if possible. Con gets the point. I also enjoy "full-contact" contests, and rarely award conduct points without flagrant insults that degrade the entire debate. That threshold was not crossed here, although the snarky tone used by Pro made me wonder if this might happen. As for the prized "convincing arguments" score - I am not certain that I see any real attempts to present an argument by Pro. I see insults, opinions, and rhetorical questions... none of which can be debated... but no real arguments. This made the debate an easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
hosslaylannan13Tied
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: A bit of a lazy debate but Con had the clear victory. Pro never addresses premise 1 (Religion Aspect), and instead argued about a 40 year old cartoon. The Source by Con was terrible. Yet I would grant the point, if Con had posted it earlier. Pro needs to be able to challenge the source fairly. Posting it in the last round served the debate no purpose.