The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This House would cancel Christmas once every ten years

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,382 times Debate No: 35026
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Full title of the resolution: This House would cancel the non-religious aspects of Christmas once every ten years.

This is my tenth debate, and it's genuinely the one that's excited me the most. Bring it on! I'm Pro, you are Con.

Debate structure:
Round One is acceptance and definitions only.
Round Two is substantives and rebuttal.
Round Three is as above.
Round Four is summing up and rebuttal only with no new arguments.

Some ground rules:
This is a semi-troll, light-hearted debate.
NO FORFEITING. I'm bored of forfeiters.
Be civil. Today is my birthday, so don't make me cry.
48 hour response time with a month long voting period.
6000 characters max per round (don't cheat with pictures).

CHRISTMAS: The Christian festival that takes place around December 25th.
NON-RELIGIOUS ASPECTS: These would include gift-giving (consumerism), Christmas trees (not originally a Christian custom), Father Christmas / Santa Claus, etc.

I look forward to a light-hearted debate on this issue of international importance.


I accept both the challenge and the definitions given and look forward to an invigorating debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will now move into my opening substantives in favour of cancelling Christmas once a decade.

Substantive I: Absence makes the heart grow fonder
We all know the differences between how Christmas is in books and fairytales and how Christmas ends up in real life. In the books, Christmas is always a time of joy and peace, with people sitting around an open fire, children happily opening presents and gratefully rejoicing at the sight of their new trinkets, and general all-round happiness. Does this actually happen in reality? Rarely, if ever. Recent studies suggest that most families will have five arguments on Christmas Day, with the first one typically starting at 10:13am [1]. This happens because we don't appreciate it enough. We're used to seeing the mass celebration aspect of Christmas come round once a year without fail. For this reason, Christmas just becomes this perpetual source of anger, resentment, and stress. But this is not in keeping with the real spirit of Christmas - an argument you will hear a lot of from Pro - and we feel that Christmas has lost its way. If we were to cancel all the hoo-hah once every ten years, and have an 'off-year' (the Christian festival wouldn't be cancelled, the state would just treat it like it treats Hannukah or a similar holiday - i.e., basically ignoring it), we would learn to appreciate Christmas more. Fields in crop rotation always have a fallow year, to give them time to rest and regrow. Why shouldn't Christmas be the same?

Substantive II: Christmas has been hijacked, so we should give it back
So many of the traditions which, in public consciousness, are deeply ingrained with 'Christmas' are not Christian in the slightest and are merely pagan and national customs which have been added to a pre-existing Christian festival. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about Christmas Trees, or carol singing. There is no Royal Christmas Message in the Bible. And gift-giving is kept to a minimum, with presents only given to the Baby Jesus - not everyone. So what we can see is that the traditional, pure, true, 'vanilla' Christmas has been horrendously violated over the years. We have taken Christmas away from the true Christians, most of whom acknowledge that the holiday has become far too consumer-focussed (see next substantive). Therefore, once every ten years, we should let Christmas return to its roots and let the real Christians (not just people who are Christian so that they receive Easter Eggs and presents) have their holiday back. Nine out of ten years, Christmas would operate as normal, as we acknowledge that permanently cancelling the non-religious aspects of Christmas would have devastating consequences. But that doesn't mean we can't have a natural Christmas occasionally.

Substantive III: Modern consumerist Christmas is unhealthy
Christmas has become too commercial - DDO has already agreed on this therefore we will take it as true for the purposes of this debate [2]. 54% of people think that Christmas is 'overrated'. 40% of people say that Christmas is just an excuse for time off [3]. Therefore, we have established that Christmas has lost its way and is far too centred around the commercial aspects and not around the spiritual or even the moral aspects. We believe that this is unhealthy because it encourages a culture where people can simply expect to be showered with gifts twice a year (including birthdays). This holiday, along with Halloween (which Pro would cancel completely, but that's for my next debate), encourages people - particularly children - to simply expect presents. This is borderline extortion on the part of those whose money and time is simply being demanded. It is too much to ask to permanently strip back the consumer aspects of Christmas in one fell swoop, that much Proposition accepts. But Opposition must equally accept that this consumerism is a bad thing and contributes to the theft of Christmas from the Christians (see previous substantive). Therefore, we should have a non-consumerist Christmas once every ten years. This will encourage the other Christmases to be less centred around presents, though I will elaborate on this in my next speech.

These are our first three substantives in favour of the cancellation of Christmas once a decade, though more will be included in R3. I wish you bah humbug and hand you back to Opposition. I'm going to revel in the irony of debating Christmas in June by going outside and running through the sunshine.






serenadeofsadness forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


You know what? I'm done with this place. This is my third consecutive debate where my opponent's forfeited. I'm bored of having my time wasted.

I have given all my substantives but my opponent has not given me anything to rebut. Unless Con contributes something in this next round Pro's arguments will be left standing and Pro will win by default.


serenadeofsadness forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


All points conceded by Con. vote Pro.


serenadeofsadness forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by orangemayhem 4 years ago
What part of "no forfeiting" are you people struggling with?!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF