The Instigator
TheMolestacher
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
singingboy2
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

This house would prosecute santa for tresspassing.

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 2 votes the winner is...
singingboy2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 28252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

TheMolestacher

Con

This house would prosecute santa for tresspass. I am going to be opp for this argument. I encourage anyone to take the side of prop.
For the purposes of this argument, let us disgard the outragous theory that there is no santa.
1st round is acceptance.
Thank you.
singingboy2

Pro

I'll do it
Debate Round No. 1
TheMolestacher

Con

OK so here is the primary argument for the opposition side.

Implied easement.
Ok, so implied easement is not a physical documentation. if it was it would not be called implied easement. As we know, easement is a legal right of access, which allows access to a private property. In most cases, private property is illegal to enter without a right of easement. Except in a select few cases. Santa is one of those cases.
Any government authority may enter a private property unhindered, I.E the police or the ambulance service. But so may personal service providers. So milkmen, postmen and the like are allowed an implied bill of access because you have employed their services. Technically you do not employ Santa. Santa just gives. However it is also possible to withdraw implied easement, so that nobody except government authorities may enter private property. And therefore, without withdrawing this right, you are indirectly claiming that Santa and or any employees of Santa may enter your property.

Pressing charges
Do you really want to press charges for somebody entering with in most cases you express permission(like leaving milk out for Santa, however legally permission does not overwrite the parameters of private property) and giving you gifts? Of course not. If you celebrate Christmas, and no matter how you look at it, that is giving the patron of Christmas Nicholas Claus permission to enter your property.
It is possible not press charges against a trespasser and this is what we here on the opposition believe should be done.


So we put it to you today that Santa has an implied right of easement and that you should not press charges against somebody you want to enter but has no easement rights.
Thank you and I encourage you to vote opp!
singingboy2

Pro

But what if i don't want santa(?Santa?) to enter my house? If I as parent of my underage children deny them any gift not from family. What right dose santa have to enter. If i wish to no longer receive mail i can I can even elect to receive it at an alternate location. Can santa not do the same. If you have a no trespassing sign on your property mailmen can not enter it unless you explicitly give them that ability.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMolestacher

Con

What right does santa have to enter. hhhhmmmm?

Implied easment maybes. i have already explained that by not revoking this right you are giving santa express permission to enter.
And, if ou don't want santa to come to your house, you are not celebrating christmas and he would not come to your house anyway.
PWNED!!!!
singingboy2

Pro

Santa is not needed for Christmas. If I have no desire for his presence in my house their is no implied easement. If I don't want him in my house he is trespassing. How can you have any right to say that if I don't want Santa in my house I am not celebrating Christmas.
Besides when I saw mama kissing Santa when I was I kid I knew I wanted him as fare a way from my wife as possible.
Debate Round No. 3
TheMolestacher

Con

May I remind the prop that his argument is not over our personal feelings toward Santa but rather whether or not we can prosecute him for trespass.
The answer is no. You keep saying that if you do not want him in your property there is no implied easement. Not true. I could take the postman to court for entering my garden, but I would not win simply because I didn't want him there, I did not officially withdraw his implied easement. Therefore he cannot be prosecuted.
I would like to summarise the oppose arguments in the following way.

We believe that Santa cannot be prosecuted for trespass because he has a legal right of access to private property. If a person did not want Santa in their house, Santa would not enter because they would not be celebrating Christmas. So Santa has never broken the law, he never enters unwanted and the proposition failed to provide any solid arguments though out the whole debate. that is why my arguments have been so short, because I have nothing to rebut.


Thank you and I urge you to vote opp!

singingboy2

Pro

Mailmen cannot enter a locked premises. Entering a locked premises without warrant or verbal permission is Breaking and entry. Implied Easement dose not cover the inside of your house. Santa is breaking the law by entering your house without permission.

And you keep saying that santa is needed to have Christmas. "If a person did not want Santa in their house, Santa would not enter because they would not be celebrating Christmas. " You are still celebrating Christmas. Christmas is about the coming of the Christian savior Jesus.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by singingboy2 4 years ago
singingboy2
When you submit your address with the IPS you must specify a location. If you tell them front gate they can only go their. If you tell them on the welcome mat at your front door they must take the shortest root will staying on side walk or driveway (why do you not call it park way english is so funny). If they detour from path they are trespassing. Witch is why if you have a gate they tend to leave it their.
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
As soon as you employ the services of a mailman, they get implied access. Look it up.
Posted by singingboy2 4 years ago
singingboy2
At my house people must ring at the gate to enter. Mail men from the IPS must leave mail at the gate. Anyone who enters the Villa without permission will be shot for trespassing. In Italia there is no implied easement you need a warrant to enter a house without permission at time of entry. I am interested to learn where this exists it is an interesting idea.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
TheMolestachersingingboy2Tied
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 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: Pro convinces me it is breaking and entering. Both parties could capitalize the first word of sentences.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
TheMolestachersingingboy2Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, it was very hard to read Cons argument. And I don't know what country Con lives in but you need a warrant or verbal permission for anyone to enter your house. Overall better argument by Pro, better grammar by Pro, and better conduct, (Con capped PWND). No sources.