The Instigator
9spaceking
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The Santa Claus Myth is Beneficial (On Balance)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,678 times Debate No: 61430
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (4)

 

9spaceking

Con

Accept when you can, Bsh1. Round one acceptance. This is for the final round of the WODC, and on a side note, I haven't lost a single debate but I only got lucky.
In fact I'm now losing to Ajabi within that philosophical debate, so I'm pretty sure I have no chance against the mighty, all-powerful Bsh1. He holds the gong and puppet strings in this debate, I'm sure. I have to bow down to him when it comes to debating. But anyhow, I still have to do this. No reason to not hold out. I even managed to throw some punches at Raisor, even if they did miss. I hope that even if I will lose it will still be a fun good debate. But, for now, I'm laying down 100 million virtual dollars on the bet that Bsh1 will win this debate, even if I try my hardest. Nevertheless I hope we both have fun, and that Bsh1 has a good challenge even if he wins.

The Santa Claus myth: the false belief that you tell your kids that Santa Claus exists, and that he knows who's naughty and nice, et cetera.
Beneficial: good, has positive effects
I believe BoP is shared. I have to try to show negative effects of the particular myth, while my opponent Bsh the positive effects.
Remember, ROUND ONE ACCEPTANCE.
Good luck, and I hope you have fun!
bsh1

Pro

I accept the debate, and I am looking forward to tapping into my holiday spirit a bit early this year (I thought I'd include a song to get us in the mood.)

Thanks to 9space for initiating this debate; I look forward to an illuminating discourse. May I just say though, that it is never a good idea to bet against yourself. I am certainly not all-powerful, and I will lose on occasion. On any given day, I could be upset by any given person. Go forth with confidence, that you may increase your chance of victory.

And, now, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a fun read! On to the debate...!
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Con

Well let's see...just why isn't the SC myth beneficial?

1. "Honesty is the cornerstone of a life well-lived"…Parents should not lie!

The above is not something I came up with, thus I have it in quotes. It is from another essay concerning honesty. Anyhow, I can prove it by paraphrasing this same essay. Being not honest is against oneself. A good example is John Proctor. No matter what the others said, even when he knew that his life was at stake, John could not bring himself to sign his name on the list for witches, because he knew that in his life he could not have another name, as he says the reason to not signing was "Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life!" [1] This shows that one should stay true to themselves because they are not truly them. Thus it can be concluded it would be irrational to go against oneself, and since Santa Claus does not really exist, it does not help the children to know this. Lies won't help, your friend with bad breath is better off with peppermints instead of your false compliments about his or her "good breath", and in this circumstance, when the children find about the fact that their parents had lied to them, they will get mad, they will get sad, and they will trust their parents less. In addition, at the very core of lying, these parents lose their integrity through telling lies to children. Evidence suggests that when children are told about the SC myth and find about how it is a lie, their relationships grow further apart from their parents. [4] This is another addition to as to highlight how unnecessarily the Santa Claus myth is, as it ruins relationships. There is no reason tell a lie to your kids if it leads to unreliability and ruins your self-image, and this is just one point about how the SC is negative.

1.5 "Honesty is the cornerstone of a life well-lived"…Children should not lie!

This point is easily concluded from above. Children learn things from their parents, and they are more likely to lie in the future if their parents lie within their young ages. A website [3] can support this; as we are effected heavily by our family cultures, we will be more likely to do what our family does. Thus, the lying about Santa Claus encourages further lies from the children, which is not beneficial.

2. More trouble for the parents

Above argument depends strongly on the assumption that the children will notice; thus, I must prove that the children will easily notice in order for my first argument to work out fully. (But however, even if the children won't notice, the parents will still feel guilty about lying and not being true to themselves, so that's a good point to contribute to this point--because if you feel guilt, you'll have a harder time telling the lies on and on) Anyhow, the SC myth is hard to keep up. The parents need to somehow get their children to believe than some person/mythological being can travel all around the world in just one day, delivering presents to everybody while only using (magical) reindeer. At first little children will probably believe the SC myth, but as time goes on, more lies upon lies will be needed to keep up the SC myth up, and by the time the kid's in middle school there's no way you can fool him. Thus the SC myth has a negative effect on the parents; it would be just easier to outright be a "Tiger Parent" instead of relying upon the Santa Claus myth to keep your children in check.

3. Illnesses for children

That's right--the Santa Claus myth can actually bring illnesses to children. As said from source [2], the SC myth can "foster the development of what later in life is called “magical thinking” which is a potentially serious cognitive distortion that many therapist struggle mightily to disabuse their clients of.” The site credits the misbelief to many illnesses, including, but not limited to, OCD and other “psychoses”, as the site says. The site also stresses what I said about the trust. It strengthens my arguments, since even a professional psychology website can credit that, indeed, children will be disappointed and less likely to believe in adults due to the Santa Claus myth.

You are now (approximately) half-way through my arguments so here’s a cute pinkie pie picture to compensate for a break. You can thank me for this later, voters. : P

3.5 The SC myth does nothing to children’s imagination.

My opponent will probably point out something about how telling kids to believe in Santa will increase their imagination. I don’t know. Maybe he won’t. But I know I have to cover everything and try to set up mine traps even before the giant mighty Bsh1 steps in to have a chance at winning. Anyhow, if you think about it, kids actually don’t have to imagine anything. You are feeding them the story of Santa Claus. If the SC myth really increased imagination, then every kid should imagine a different Santa. But this is not the case. All the Santa’s are pretty much the same because every single story is old and told. Thus, telling the story does not increase imagination, and it takes advantage of the fact that your children trusts you.

4. The Slippery Slope

Santa is very similar to Jesus or God, if you think about it. Santa is practically omnipotent, being able to deliver gifts all over the world in just one night without being spotted, being able to tell if you’re good or bad (OMNISCIENT TOO!)….When you tell a kid about when Santa isn’t real, the children will question their faith and wonder whether Jesus or God exists or not and start asking questions about them and why they don’t answer their prayers, solve the world’s problems, etc, etc….which is very annoying. Parents will have to discuss furthermore with their child about religion, and will have a tough time, because after the child finds out about the fact that Santa doesn’t really exist, he’ll doubt the parent and question them heavily. The frustration involved in this cannot be worded, and it extends my honesty argument even further—even after the lies are revealed, they can still harm.

5. Using bribes is wrong

It is immoral to give gifts on Christmas as bribe. This is simple and easy to understand. Ever since Christmas started, it was supposed to be a holiday where parents give their love to their children through expressing via gifts. However, using gifts as bribe is simply unspeakable! It’s the opposite of the meaning of Christmas; bribes should be used some other time. It is just not appropriate for the time of celebration, reconciliation, and love.

6. The Parent should give their love, not “Santa Claus”

Let us suppose for a moment that, after all, the children never ever falls into the trap. The big problem of the Santa Claus myth is that it makes children think that Santa is giving all these gifts on Christmas, and that you only give your children on birthdays and special occasions. Oh come on, you don’t have to credit everything to an imaginary person! Just credit it to you, and then you can take them to go shopping together, teach them financial lessons, and most of all, make your loved ones happy! Give them the “gift of giving”, the whole point of Christmas!!

And with that, I conclude my points. I know I have like more than 500 characters left, but I got no more arguments. And so….

Onto you, Bsh1.

[1] http://www.sparknotes.com...

[2] http://v.gd...

[3] http://psychcentral.com...

[4] http://psychcentral.com...

bsh1

Pro

Thanks to 9space for what will undoubtedly be a fun, whimsical, and childish (in a good way) debate. I will present my case at this time, reserving my rebuttals for next round.

THE RESOLUTION

The topic is asking us the Santa Myth beneficial. Importantly, it does not ask whether the myth is beneficial for children, but merely whether the myth is beneficial in general. We can also assume, I think fairly reasonable, that "beneficial" denotes a net benefit.

ARGUMENTS

1.0 Santa Claus is a Positive Role Model

First, what is a positive role model? "A positive role model carries out a role demonstrating values, ways of thinking and acting, which are considered good in that role." [1] Simply put, a positive role model is something that demonstrates desired traits, such as a strong work ethic, creativity, friendliness, empathy, and so forth.

1.1 The Importance of Role Models

Psychology has made incredible strides in showing the impact of observational and modeling on learning, including on learning moral values. Albert Bandura did this perhaps most famously in his Bobo Doll Experiment, wherein he illustrated how children who witnessed aggressive actions were more likely to act aggressively themselves. [2] It can be posited that our ability to mirror activities, ideas, etc. of others has roots in our human evolutionary processes, in that learning via modeling is "likely a survival function designed to help us to mimic the traits of those successful members of our society and thereby help us to be successful too." [3]

1.2 Santa Models Positive Traits

Santa is the epitome of altruism, teaching kids that gift-giving and sharing are things to be valued and appreciated. His jovial personality also conveys important lessons about being friendly, considerate, and outgoing, and eschewing aggressive behaviors. As TV Producer Jonathan Meath writes, "Santa is really the only cultural icon we have who's male, does not carry a gun, and is all about peace, joy, giving, and caring for other people. That's part of the magic for me, especially in a culture where we've become so commercialized and hooked into manufactured icons. Santa is much more organic, integral, connected to the past, and therefore connected to the future." [4] Ergo, Santa Claus is a positive role model for children.

2.0 Santa Promotes Togetherness and Family

2.1 The Santa Clause Myth spurs ancillary rituals to Accompany it

"Christmas Eve Santa Claus rituals in the United States include reading A Visit from St. Nicholas or other tales about Santa Claus, watching a Santa or Christmas-related animated program on television (such as...Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town and similar specials, such as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, among many others), and the singing of Santa Claus songs such as 'Santa Claus Is Coming to Town,' 'Here Comes Santa Claus,' and 'Up on the House Top.'" [4] I can personally vouch for the veracity of these reports. As I child, I, with my parents, would watch Christmas movies until close to my bed time, and then my parents would read 'Twas the Night Before Christmas to me. I would leave out cookies for Santa and carrots for the reindeer, and then run upstairs to await Santa's arrival.

2.2 Santa-related Rituals offer Opportunities for Family Time

All of the aforesaid activities, including movie-watching, reading-stories, caroling, even baking cookies for Santa, lend themselves to quality family time and togetherness. Ergo, Santa promotes togetherness and family.

2.3 Santa Promotes Peace and Unity

Please see 1.2--Santa is an icon of peace and giving to others selflessly. Moreover, "the festive ritual of exchanging presents associated with Father Christmas also helps develop a child's sense of charitable giving as well as their consideration of others less fortunate than themselves." [5] By being an advocate for peace and unity, Santa promotes togetherness by urging us to get into the Christmas spirit and shed our animosities, if only for a short while, to be together as a community of peoples. Ergo, Santa promotes togetherness.

3.0 Santa Provides a Useful Outlet in a Hyper-rationalized World

3.1 Santa brings some Whimsy to our Lives

"Society increasingly holds 'rationality' above all else there was a danger that the significance of myths and magic was being eroded." [5] Belief in the impossible is an important means of escaping the often dreary realities of modern day life. Santa provides on of the earliest ways for children to get into the habit of imagining something beyond themselves--and they do it with the encouragement of society. In this way, Santa helps to foster in children a tendency to think creatively and to imagine beyond rational boundaries, to dream big.

3.2 Dreaming Big is Beneficial

"Believing in Father Christmas helps boost children's mental development and social skills...'On balance the tale of Santa Claus is a powerful tool that may serve to nurture social and cognitive development, particularly in a technological society where children mature earlier.'" [5] "Child-development experts are recognizing the importance of imagination and the role it plays in understanding reality. Imagination is necessary for learning about people and events we don't directly experience, such as history or events on the other side of the world. For young kids, it allows them to ponder the future, such as what they want to do when they grow up... If the child already has an imaginary friend, for instance, parents should follow their children's lead and offer encouragement if they are comfortable doing so, she says. Similarly, with Santa, if a child seems excited by the idea, parents can encourage it." [6] Ergo, Santa is beneficial as a means of encouraging kids to imagine; it gives them something magical to believe in.

4.0 The Santa Myth has massive commercial Benefits

4.1 Santa Clause Makes Money

Every Christmas season stores are packed with Santa-everything, from statuettes to candles to socks to sweaters. This is fairly common knowledge and I am sure most voters can personally attest to this commercial element of Santa Claus. Meetings with Kris Kringle are popular attractions at stores, and he has been used successfully in advertising for years. [4] Moreover, when we consider the sheer number of letters sent to him each year, the myth probably generates a small fortune in postage and business for mail delivery services. [4]

4.2 The Examples of Kyrgyzstan and Finland

"In the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek, a Santa Claus Festival was held on 30 December 2007, with government officials attending. 2008 was officially declared the Year of Santa Claus in the country. The events are seen as moves to boost tourism in Kyrgyzstan." [4] We can also look to place like Finland, which have turned the Santa myth into a booming tourist industry. [4] The benefits to the economies of nations should be sufficient to affirm the topic.

5.0 The Santa Myth Promotes Literacy

Many postal services allow children to send letters to Santa Claus...Writing letters to Santa Claus has the educational benefits of promoting literacy, computer literacy, and e-mail literacy. A letter to Santa is often a child's first experience of correspondence. Written and sent with the help of a parent or teacher, children learn about the structure of a letter, salutations, and the use of an address and postcode." [4] Because the myth helps and motivates kids to learn how to read, write, and address letters, it has an educational benefit.

SOURCES

1 - http://psychology.wikia.com...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://www.healthguidance.org...
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://www.theguardian.com...
6 - http://online.wsj.com...

Ho, ho, ho! Over to Con!
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Con

1.1 Importance of Role Models
This point goes against Bsh1, as when the parents lie about the SC myth, their children will more likely to be like their parents. Thank you for countering your own argument, Bsh1. That makes life (or death for me in this case) much easier.

1.2 Santa being an amazing role model

All I have to say is, Jonathan is definitely not a Christian.

|

|

|

|

|

|

|


|

|

|

|

|



|

|

|

|

|


|

|

Nope, just kidding. I tricked you. That's not all I have to say. What I really have to say is that Santa Claus is actually not that good of a role model when one thinks very very carefully. As noted from [1], which makes a very good point of highlighting Natan Grill's essay, and striking the most strange, bad parts about Santa's image, Santa is of course very nice and teaches this aspect to kids. However, Santa is also obese and overweight, relating to children who are overweight as well because they misunderstand, relating Santa's obesity to niceness. In addition, if you think about it, Santa is also very lazy, wanting milk and cookies while visiting houses as his diet, and sitting in a sleigh pulled by reindeer. If he was a truly good model, then he could just magically teleport from house to house instead of using animals as slaves, and only be slightly plump instead of way overweight. I mean, look at the below picture! Santa is just way too fat!

Even source [2] agrees.

2.1 SC myth spurs rituals

But again, what about after the myth is revealed? What happens next? It would be awkward to have a holiday about somebody who doesn't exist.

2.2 Santa Rituals means togetherness and family.

But the lie can also promote deceit, doubt, and discredibility within the family members.

2.3 Peace and unity

Nope. Incorrect. Families are actually more likely to be dysfunctional, and a statistic shows that there's a suicide spike on New Year's Day or around Christmas, when depression comes in soon after the so called "reunion". [4] Christmas reunion? More like Christmas depression.

3.1 Santa brings whimsy

It's not imagination!! It's just telling you facts about an imaginary person. Again, if I showed you a picture of myself and told you about my stories and my personality, no imagination is needed. You know what I look like. You know what I am like. There is no creative thinking within this.

3.2 More mental development and social skills....

And when they find about the falseness of Santa, they will hate the parents for ruining the magic they oh-so believe in.

4. Commercial benefits

But--it must be noted that there are commercial harms to the people as well. As stated from source [3], due to how stores work, Christmas decreases income inequality, because of concentrated profits as well as smaller store having disadvantages, leading to today's deregulated economy. [3] Not only that, many many trees are cut down from real trees, just 33 million only counting the year 1997, and spending all the way up to $1.1 billion! [3] Finally, the planting of trees using farms decreases biodiversity and habitability of the natural wild nature or old-growth forests. This shows not only the economic obstacles of Christmas, but the environmental obstacles as well.

Industry benefit:

You win this one, but only because I can't find a source about how much the SC festival cost to run.

Promoting Literacy:

You win again.

Now, unlike the previous round, I have tons of characters left, so I will try to create a philosophical argument.

PATCHIN' UP THE HONESTY WALL:

I'll be building an immunity force field around every single argument before about honesty. I will prove that the SC myth is indeed a big fat lie to patch up the wall before my opponent tries to make it disappear with a "It's not a lie" spell.

The SC myth is a lie because Santa Claus does not really exist. There is a reason it is called a "myth", myths are false stories, and cannot be true, and therefore are lies. In addition, the man who it was based off of--Saint Nicholas--was completely misrepresented. Saint Nicholas is skinny, not plump or fat at all, as seen in his painting. [4] Even in his legends, he spent more time saving lives rather than giving gifts[6], while Santa Claus's sole purpose is to give gifts to good children while coal to bad people. Seriously? Coal? It's expensive and it can only help the bad child power the house....okay, I'm trailing off, but the idea is ridiculous and is a complete bad "parody" of St. Nick. I bet if sir Nicholas was still alive today he would not like how his image is represented: some old fat jolly guy who rides on his sleigh via reindeer and sneaks a few cookies and glasses of milk into his already over-fat diet. Nope, nope.

Not only that, the SC myth misses the whole big mark of the true meaning of Christmas! Source [7] hits right at the mark, base home.... analyzing the old celebration verses the new holiday, examines it thoroughly and notes the fact that Chirstmas is just wealth worship in its core, since the poor can't exactly buy good gifts. In contrast, the olden holiday of Christmas was meant to celebrate the life of a saint who sacrificed his time and life to devote himself to a life of service, while Santa is just an imaginary figure who punishes the "naughty" while rewarding the "nice". While these two may seem similar, as source [7] notes, the wealthy receive excellent grand gifts, giving the illusion that they are "nice", while the poor families do not receive such good gifts and as a result are seemingly "naughty", and as a result will definitely have lower self-esteem in themselves and even possibly lead to depression! The SC myth simply does not celebrate the original old spirit of the good old Saint Nicholas holiday.

In conclusion, for this round although I conceded two points, I rebutted the rest with counters and readied my armed forces for Bsh1's great attack. My "honesty wall" is up, with a variety of "soldiers" skilled within the effects of the lies, and all of it is protected by a "force field", in addition to the epic "missile" of SC myth being morally wrong and thus not beneficial, since it misses the true meaning of Christmas. I believe Bsh1 will have a very tough time trying to wreck holes and try to break through my castle, and I am taking back 50,000$ from my original bet at this moment just in case I somehow win this debate (possibly with the help of magic).

Back to you, Bsh1.








bsh1

Pro

Thanks, 9space, for a great debate so far! I will now rebut Con's opening arguments. Also, more Christmas music: https://www.youtube.com...

1. Parents should not Lie

Con sites as his warrant for the importance of truth an essay from the play The Crucible. Firstly, I don't think a play about witch-hunting in colonial America has any real relevance to the topic at hand, nor is it an authoritative source on the psychological impacts of lying.

Parents lie for a whole variety of reasons--one example that is often show in media is parents buying new pets to replace old pets who died, and then informing their children that the new pet is the same as the old pet. This spares the child having to confront the idea that a beloved animal has died. I would argue that this doesn't teach children that lying is okay; instead, it teaches them to be sympathetic and to do things that minimize the pain of others.

When we talk about Santa Claus, there are clear benefits to the myth that I expounded on earlier (and will defend next round). As children age, they'll realize the purpose of the myth is not to lie, but rather to convey moral lessons and to bring some excitement to a child's life. Again, the myth is teaching kids the lesson of "lying is good," but rather "conveying moral lessons" and "bringing happiness to a life" are good. "Psychologist Tamar Murachver said that because it is a cultural, not parental, lie, it does not undermine parental trust." [1] In fact, Con's source (no. 4) that suggests the myth harms a child's relationship with their parents is merely a string of cherry-picked examples, and cannot prove that "on balance" it is detrimental to that relationship.

As for my friend with bad breath, to use Con's example, why needless hurt his feelings by telling him "your breath is bad." Instead, casually offer him a piece of mint gum to help remedy his problem.

Con then asserts that Children will be upset that they were lied too. This is false. "Dr. John Condry of Cornell University interviewed more than 500 children for a study of the issue and found that not a single child was angry at his or her parents for telling them Santa Claus was real. According to Dr. Condry, 'The most common response to finding out the truth was that they felt older and more mature. They now knew something that the younger kids did not.'" [1] In this way, the Santa myth is used a means of inducting children into the next level of maturity, and has a positive impact on their self-confidence, even after they know the truth.

2. Trouble for Parents

Sure, children will notice that Santa doesn't exist at a certain point, and it's when they start experience serious doubt that parents ought to tell them the truth. The child's dubiousness is evidence that they can handle the reality of the truth; but just because some parents might go to great lengths to preserve the lie doesn't invalidate the myth on balance.

3. Illness

Con says, "the Santa Claus myth can actually bring illnesses to children." Yet, Con's source (no. 2) explicitly states, "I’m not implying that magical thinking causes psychiatric illnesses." Con's own source rebuts him.

Many children think about Santa Claus creatively. Just go up to any little kid and ask them to explain how Santa gets around the world in one night. Many of them will give creative responses to these questions that test their cognitive abilities; many don't simply parrot their parents. Moreover, just having children as "why" or having them come up with thoughtful questions about the myth (such as how does Santa know if we're naughty or nice?) build their critical thinking skills. So there is cognitive benefit.

4. Slippery Slope

Con's argument here is that kids will start questioning other beliefs. Sure, why is that a problem? Don't we want our kids to be critical thinkers and to analyze things, and not believe any barely asserted claim their told? In fact, asking questions is an important method of learning in young children. [2]

5. Bribes

This whole argument is about gift-giving, not the Santa myth. Parents who don't tell their kids about Santa still often give gifts, so this argument is non-unique.

6. Love vs. Santa

We can't parents give both? Personally, I think telling my kids about Santa will be an act of love, because I feel like telling them the myth is in their interests. Con presents this as an either/or--it's not. You can have both.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.child-central.com...


Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Con

Ah, it's the final round! Bsh1 manages to swing a gigantic hammer across and completely obliterate my Wall of Honesty. In fact, he even parachutes some secret agents to sneak in and attack my grand castle. Now, my opponent makes a good case for why it is okay to lie if that benefits go over the harms. However, does the SC myth really convey moral lessons? Do these morals out beat the negative effects of the Santa Claus myth? I'll let the voters decide over what I had previously said, and will say in this round, and judge this argument based on the rest of my arguments.

2. Trouble for parents
My big point here is that parents will have trouble and problem telling the kids that it's a myth, especially if they believe it is true, it is magic, and Santa is awesome. The parents might be better off avoiding telling the Santa Claus myth and instead just teach a moral lesson in a different story.

3. Bad effects on children
Yes, my source rebuts some of my contentions, but it suggests the SC myth as a symptom of these psychological effects at the very least.

4. Doubts in belief
The big problem here is that if a children takes religion seriously, they will be shocked to hear that a similar figure to their Jesus or God does not really exist, and start to lose hope in their "universal creator".

5. Bribes
The notable important difference is that in one scenario you're telling a false story to get children to act good, and to cover up the story you give them gifts, giving the illusion that the children really weren't loved by you; only their good actions got the gifts. On the other hand if you don't mention that good behavior=gifts, when you give them gifts the children will feel like you really love them. The love inadvertently leads to acting good, and therefore you do not have to tell a false story and try to talk about how "Santa will give you gifts if your behavior is good" in order to both get love and good behavior.
In other words,
with Santa myth:
-False story, whether before or after the lie, the children doesn't feel like you love him
-Even if he has good behavior before he notices it is a lie, there is nothing that guarantees he won't be naughty from then on... "It's not like Santa's gonna go buy coal and put it into my gift box!"

Without Santa myth
-Children may act kind of bad, but will feel guilty when you give him gifts
-These gifts show your love to the children
-Your children trusts you and tries to act better so you'll "love him more" and give him more gifts!

Due to how children separate love from like (The natural parenting love, verses just "liking" of the good behavior) because of their simple mind an inability to grasp the complex relationship between the love and liking, the difference will be crucial, and they feel more loved and better off without the Santa Claus myth.

6. Love vs Santa
"We can't parents give both?"
I see you are speechless, Bsh1. You can't even talk right. We can not parents give both? What?? You mean "why", right? Well, too late for that. Deduct spelling and grammar points from him, please, judges, if you will.
Anyhow, the big obstacle between parents' love and Santa is that once the children realize you've told them a lie, it will be hard for them to trust you again.

And now, it's time for...
IR-REFUTED ARGUMENTS
-The SC myth does not accurately portray St. Nicolas and as such is not in his honor. It is immoral for a holiday to be named after someone yet completely irrelevant to him and in fact a bad role model in comparison to him. (In other words, my force-field is undamaged by the massive hammer.)
-The industry may earn money, but it also spends a ton of money on tree farming. And thus leading to less environmental biodiversity and less space for wild life.
-Parents still spend a lot of trouble covering up the Santa myth and/or gaining back the trust they lose, and as a result love and Santa cannot exactly go together in this case
-The children will still have many doubts in their belief and lose hope in their God
-Because of the way children think, they will feel better off without the Santa Claus myth
-The myth does not increase children's imagination skills....you're just giving them the same facts and stories. Again, as I stated within round two, "If Santa Claus really enhanced imagination, then most children should be thinking about a different Santa....but this is not the case!" (Or something similar to that)
-And many many more arguments from all the rounds above.... read carefully, judges.

CONCLUSION
-It was very very very tough battling this out with the mighty powerful Bsh1. I think my original bet was correct, he will win, even while I tried my hardest in this debate, and I'm pretty sure he will win the WODC. I don't know why I took back that money, but I can't put it back any more, so I guess I'm just gonna earn interest from the remaining...however much remains.
-I stretched out far and wide to every corner possible to cover my arguments, from psychology, to environmental, to economical, to philosophical....and even semantic! (Again, please deduct S & G point from Bsh1, voters, unless I somehow made more errors than Bsh1)

I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, and I'll be going off the site until further notice for studious reasons. Email me (or prank mail me, if you really miss me that much and want me to come back :P) at gugigor at live dot com, if I magically somehow manage to even tie against Bsh1. Goodbye for now; I'll see you in break time! (Or when I tie/something better than tie with Bsh1 within this debate!) :D
bsh1

Pro

bsh1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
good debate. I'll get my revenge!!
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@9space - Thanks--and we can all use a little luck in our lives.
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
I dont feel like voting on this. Sorry for both judges, but I can't think of sufficient RFD and I really can't choose a winner.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I will lose. Gg, Bsh1. You are the second person to ever beat me after a forfeit. And good luck within the finals against Krit/Ajabi. Not that you need it. It was tough debating you, and I hope to debate you again!
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I only just remembered there were elo restrictions. :(
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Sorry! I didn't know there were ELO restrictions!
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Have I ever mentioned my profound hatred for that darn ELO restriction? If I have, have I ever mentioned it in correlation with the debaters asking me to vote? -_-

Meanies, both of yew. :P
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
Will vote tomorrow
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Now all we have to do is to wait for Bladey (runner or truth) to come and tip the scale in the true winner's favor...
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
I have relented and given the conduct point to Con. Pro's forfeit at the end pushes the balance to Con. I still don't Con's taunting of his opponent.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
9spacekingbsh1Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: even with the FF, this is still a slight edge to pro. As a previous voter also said this debate is weighed by the impacts of the arguments and just due to the preponderance of evidence and the case built by pro, his left a more powerful impression on me. Both presented good cases, and neither of each others contentions were over all refuted. Then it just comes down weight the argument. Pro could have shifted the goal post a bit in regards to the actual resoultion which that point ties in with the conduct point im giving con, but it still stayed pretty on point throughout the entire debate. At least it does not warrant an argument point to con via the small shift. Im look at args from con like trouble from parents, imagination and a faulty slippery slope argument vs pros positive traits, great role mode, examples of positive traits, and peace an unity. Overall pro was able to effectively establish santa as a good roll model. thus args to pro and conduct to con
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
9spacekingbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a difficult debate to judge. Con made it clear that the debate was about what "you tell your kids that Santa Claus exists, and that he knows who's naughty and nice, et cetera." Pro then said the topic was about the Santa Claus myth in general and not about children in particular. The problem is that Con largely allowed Pro to change the topic. The myth is unlikely to have a harmful effect on people who celebrate it as a myth, whereas the harm comes from teaching the myth as true. Halloween is an example of myths enjoyed as myths. So Pro wins the debate that was not the resolution and Con wins what the debate was supposed to be about. I formed a clear opinion of what the topic was, based solely upon Con's opening statement regarding effects on children. Con confirmed that understanding based upon his R2 argument. So even though Con didn't reassert the topic as he should have, I'm giving arguments to Con based upon the self-evident meaning. More in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingbsh1Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll keep this brief. Conduct goes to Con for the forfeit at the end. No one gets S&G (both of you had quite a few lapses). As for arguments, I'm voting Pro. His case generally produces stronger links to his impacts, and those impacts are better explained. Much of Con's initial case is dealt a series of blows that at least makes me question the link story, and at worst makes me dismiss the impacts as unimportant. Some of the arguments did go uncovered, as Con points out, but they're not weighed effectively within the debate, especially the biodiversity point (which, coming from a biologist, was somewhat confusing to begin with). I never see a reason why altered "history" is a bad thing and I don't see why belief in God being altered is harmful in any substantial way. Much of Con's case is hampered by efforts to mitigate Pro's case before he even states it, taking a lot of the wind out of his sails. I mainly vote on commercial benefits and the positive role model, as these were big.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
9spacekingbsh1Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is interesting, because it appears as if the resolution is positive, meaning that the BOP would be on PRO to prove it -but "beneficial" is subjective, meaning that what we're talking about is the stuff of opinion, and only a shared BOP is appropriate. That means that PRO must show more persuasively than CON that the SC myth is beneficial, to win. Conversely, CON must show the opposite: that the SC myth is not beneficial more persuasively than PRO. CON does not have to show that the SC myth is harmful -only that it is not beneficial, to win. Even still, the burden is equal. As a housekeeping matter, Bsh1 forfeited the final round. That means that conduct must go to CON. That does not mean, however, that Bsh1 lost the debate, because rounds were submitted, such that even if one party forfeited one round, that does not mean -as a matter of policy- that he forfeits the debate. RFD to follow in comments.