The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
dvhoose
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

It is plausible that Santa Claus exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 12 votes the winner is...
dvhoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,896 times Debate No: 6247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (12)

 

Yraelz

Pro

My position is pretty simple. I think that it is scientifically plausible that Santa Claus exists. This of course includes all Santa Claus attributes such as delivering presents to everyone in one night and ya da ya da ya.

My disclaimer on this however is that Santa Claus in my interpretation only delivers to those who believe in him.

Definition: plausible - In this case meaning possible.

Thus I present the challenge, someone show me that some part of Santa Claus is simply made up.......
dvhoose

Con

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for posting the highly creative and original debate...

But to the issue at hand...

While the idea of Santa may exist through generosity, the idea of a tangible Santa is simply absurd.

You said that we're accepting the general Santa Claus attributes with the exception that presents are only delivered to those who believe in Santa Claus. Two that I can easily think of are:

1)Lives at the North Pole
2)Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night

And here's why Santa cannot possibly exist.

Lives at the North Pole- Several expeditions have been made to the North Pole and no one has seen any evidence that a rather fat man in a red suit lives there with his wife and an unknown number of elves. [1]

Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night- When just looking at the Earth as a 2D circle, the earth is roughly 7,900 miles in diameter [2]. This means the Earth is almost 25,000 miles in circumference. To figure speed, simply take 25,000/24 (hours in a day, or, in this case, night) and we get almost 1,050 mph! Eight (or nine) reindeer have to carry Santa, a sleigh, all the presents, and themselves at 1,050 mph just to fly around the equator. I'm only considering ONE axis. If even one child in every country believed in Santa Claus, he'd have to move at speeds that would surely rip him to shreds!

Again, those are just two accepted facts about Santa Claus. Any others my opponent wishes to bring up are fine. I'd like to conclude by thanking my opponent for this creative debate, the readers for taking the time to sort through all this information, and the judges for sorting through all this info AND making an opinion on it.

I look forward to seeing the counter-arguments...

SOURCES

[1] Web-cam of the North Pole http://www.arctic.noaa.gov...
[2] Diameter of Earth http://geography.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Why thank you for accepting this debate my most esteemed opponent.

The first of my opponents points is that Santa Claus lives at the north pole and since we have been there multiple times and have not seen him it must not be true. My points on this are listed below.....

1. First and foremost the lack of evidence for something existing does not disprove existence, such is truly a fallacy.
2. Secondly however I would like to quote my opponents own source when it says,

"The web cams are no longer transmitting images. With the approach of winter cold, storms and darkness, the lenses of the web cams become covered with snow and ice and there is not enough light for the solar panels which power the web cams. We plan to deploy new web cams at the North Pole in April-May 2009."

Thus it would probably be safe to assume that even if Santa was popping out of the ground every day we would never actually know.

3. My third argument comes from the ocean. Despite the fact that we have explored the ocean rather thoroughly in the past couple decades we still have come no where near finding every single creature. Thus it is not only scientifically possible that Santa could be hiding at the north pole but also empirically granted through my oceanic example.

So now that I've taken an interesting look at my opponents first point let's move on to his second.... (or her?). Once again my points are listed below.

1. The first is inherent through flaws in my opponents assumptions. Specifically my opponent states that, "Delivers all the presents, worldwide, in one night". I think that this would only be from the subjective viewpoint of my opponent and not necessarily from an objective viewpoint.

2. My 2nd point only furthers my first when I offer some evidence from a news source:

http://www.reuters.com...

Specifically this evidence offers us the analysis that Santa indeed could scientifically exploit the space time continuum and thus could have six months, or more, subjectively to deliver presents.

3. Furthermore and finally the source offers insight on how Santa may scientifically reverse grow presents through nanotechnology. Just another way that would save Santa a great deal of time.
dvhoose

Con

Certainly, my opponent has proved a worthy one.

As for the quote on the North Pole web-cam, it is true that the camera is off-line, but if we continue to copy and paste, we learn that:

"Web Cam 3 is a fish eye view showing sky and cloud cover. Each reading by the radiometer triggers Web Cam 3 to take a photograph. Images are taken every 2 hours, allowing visual verification and comparison between sky conditions and radiometer measurements."

When you consider the space of two hours, as far as de-constructing and reconstructing an entire building, it seems nigh impossible that Santa Claus would be able to avoid human detection. Where would the time be to actually make toys and pack a sleigh?

As for the ocean, humans have never been to the bottom of the ocean, besides, it gets extremely dark and an enormous amount of pressure is placed on objects as depth increases. This argument is irrelevant in terms of Santa because we know where Santa supposedly lives, however we used to have a web cam on his location, and still haven't seen him.

The Reuters article, while certainly entertaining, has some flaws, and I encourage those of you who will vote to read this article. The two big points made from it are stretching the space-time continuum and nanotechnology.

"'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters."

Obviously by this statement, WE as humans understand these things, yet we can't slow time... how is this justified?

"'We believe that he uses nanotechnology to grow the presents under the tree and really, what he's done, is he's figured out how to turn what we call irreversible thermo-dynamic properties into reversible ones and so he really starts with soot, candy, other types of natural materials, he puts them under the tree and he actually grows them in a reverse process to create the presents, wrapping and all.'"

It stands to reason that across the world, hundreds of thousands of humans are working on nanotechnology. Nothing has ever been made using nanotechnology. How is one person supposed to have done this all by himself, let alone mass produce it? [1]

The above arguments refute everything my opponent has stated.

To extend my argument, I'd like to use some analytical thinking. Santa has existed for as long as anyone can remember. For all of my opponents arguments to be true, Santa would have to be using nanotechnology and bending the space-time continuum for decades! Undoubtedly, anyone who could perform such a feat would have contracted at least a minor case of God Complex. My opponent assumes that Santa has been using complex technology for DECADES! He'd be bound to come out and claim all the fame and glory associated with such an astounding discovery. Just some food for thought...

For clarification, I am a guy

SOURCES

[1] http://www.zyvex.c...
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Alright let's evaluate these new arguments. The first argument my opponents brings up is that the camera still takes pictures every two hours. I'm actually rather unaware of how this matters.

First off I submit the idea that Santa has every capability of living underground, in fact I've seen videos which include this idea....

Secondly however I think the fact that Santa could exploit the space-time continuum allows him leeway to build things in that two hours period and then deconstruct without ever being detected.

My opponent's second argument is that my ocean analogy has no place in this debate. I don't quite see my opponents point in this case, especially considering that we know many other fish live at the bottom of the ocean but have not yet found them. Furthermore I still consider it to be a scientific possibility considering the ability for Santa to be living underground at the North Pole. Finally consider my other argument from above, it negates this point.

The next point from my opponent reads as such, "Obviously by this statement, WE as humans understand these things, yet we can't slow time... how is this justified?"

I think the fundamental problem here is that my opponent fails to realize that an understanding of how something works does not immediately grant the understandee all technologies that might extend from such. For instance we have understood Einstein's E = MC^2 for some time now. Through this principle we also know that Matter - Antimatter annihilation would grant us mass amounts of energy, yet we do not yet have the ability to use Matter - Antimatter annihilation. Though some experts such as Stephen Hawking speculate that we will in the near future.

The point is this, despite the fact that humans know about the space time continuum we don't know yet how to exploit it. Thus it still remains scientifically plausible that Santa Claus has figured out how.

The next argument from my opponent is along the exact same line as the last one. He says it in infeasible for Santa to use Nano technology because other humans have not yet figured out how to. I think the logical fallacy in this case is really apparent, just take a look at my last point for reference.

Finally my opponent extends an analytical argument about how Santa probably would have a god complex by this point if he had been so advanced for so very long. While I think it is possible that Santa could indeed have a god complex this allows for the possibility that he doesn't. Thus despite my opponents argument it still remains plausible that Santa exists, unlikely or not, it is still possible.

Thus I have finished my speech. As a final note I would ask that my opponent submit no new points in his final speech as I will have no chance to reply. Thanks for the debate!
dvhoose

Con

I will follow my opponents wishes and not add any new arguments, and will only refute the arguments made in the debate...

With that said, let's delve into the arguments my opponent made...

On the relevancy of the web-cam, it proves Santa's house doesn't exist! As for Santa living underground, polar ice is only 6-9 feet deep. [1] In a one story house, ceilings are 8 ft tall... not to mention the roof, a basement, an attic, or whatever else Santa may have on his house. My opponent is suggesting that santa lives in the sub-freezing ocean waters... As of right now, the temperature at the North Pole is 9 degrees F [2] The water is colder than that. Hypothermia, anyone?

*Note this is not a new argument because I'm explaining why Santa has to live on land, and since we have (had) a webcam on the North Pole, and didn't see his house, I don't see how Santa can possibly exist.

My above argument explains the ocean analogy.

With Santa and the space-time continuum, I encourage the readers and voters to read the Reuters article...

"'He understands that space stretches, he understands that you can stretch time, compress space and therefore he can, in a sense, actually have six Santa months to deliver the presents,' Silverberg told Reuters."

No mention of the technology necessary, just that Santa understands that time stretches...

My opponent seems to just blow off my next argument, saying I've made a logical fallacy and then not explaining. Here's the rational that went behind that. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of the smartest people this world has to offer have been working on bending the space-time continuum and nanotechnology for YEARS! And my opponent wants to say that ONE lonely man living in the ocean is the ONLY person on the planet who knows how to do it? Doesn't that seem unreasonable?

And finally on the God Complex, nobody is perfect. As living creatures we all have our faults. As humans, many are emotional or mental... If you were the ONLY person on the ENTIRE PLANET who knew how to slow time and make anything you wanted to with amazing precision, how long could you hold on to that secret? Wouldn't you sell that secret for billions upon billions of dollars? Wouldn't you want to be recognized for that? Yeah, there are some virtuous people on this earth, but for CENTURIES? Nobody could put up with that secret for anywhere near as long as Santa would've had to...

With that I'll conclude this speech and the debate. As a final note, I ask the judges to look purely at the facts, the merits of the debate, and not on personal opinion...

If it's not too much trouble to leave constructive comments on your decision, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks to all, and good luck to my opponent...

SOURCES

[1] http://query.nytimes.com....
[2] http://www.weather.com...
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
I don't see the two independent clauses.....
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
It's a shame that this debate's voting is closed. This would have been my RFD:

+ Conduct is a tie. Both debaters were cordial, and both debaters thanked each other.

+ English goes to CON. PRO needs to learn that two independent clauses must either be separated by a period or semicolon.

+ Argument is a tie. For starting and having a major disadvantage in the debate, PRO defended his position with amazing proficiency.

+ Sources is also a tie.
Posted by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
haha Santa has created the next Ponzi scheme :D nice one s0m31john
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Santa Claus has been running a slave labor camp at the North Pole for centuries, so he has no labor costs, and is so loaded that he gives billions of gifts a year for FREE in a complicated tax scam, while secretly delivering arms and narcotics from his sleigh.
Posted by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
thank you...
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
ms. gonovice
Posted by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
i'm not a mister!!!
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Yeah, tis a fun debate on whether or not it is possible he exists, mr. Gonovice
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
Re Gonovice: Yes, Mr. Scrooge.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Gonovice.... that's not even what this debate is about..... We're not debating if Santa exists or not, we all know he doesn't.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by adamcp90 8 years ago
adamcp90
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by cto09 8 years ago
cto09
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 8 years ago
Rodriguez47
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
YraelzdvhooseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05