The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

You can not prove that Santa Claus is not real and living today.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+20
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 14 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,284 times Debate No: 10266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (14)

 

Koopin

Pro

No one can prove to me that Santa Claus is not real and living today.
I am not just talking about Saint Nicholas from the 270 A.D.
I am talking about the Santa Claus that delivers presents on Christmas Eve, and flies in the sky with reindeer.
I will let my opponent start.

Source:
(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I intend to make this fun.

You- In traditional debate, "you" usually refers to the contender.
==============================
My contentions:
1. Not anything is real.
2. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, he would be crushed under over four million pounds of force and die.
3. If Santa Claus attempted to do his annual trip, his entire reindeer team would burst into flames within 4.26 trillionths of a second.
=========================
First Contention: Solipsism
1. Either the universe exists or the universe does not exist.
2. There is no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of the universe.
3. Occam's Razor: The universe does not exist.
Sources:
1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
2. http://math.ucr.edu...
=========================
Second Contention: Santa was crushed during one of his annual attempts.
Assuming a Christian child delivery population of ~378,000,000 with a census average of 3.5 children per household and a requrement to visit each household for both naughty and nice children in the 31 hours of Christmas eve, Santa must visit 822.6 houses per second. The math in source 2.1 finds that Santa's sleigh would have to travel 650 miles per second.
When the minimum mass of the sleigh is assessed at about 642,600,000 pounds, the physics would cause Santa to be pulled back into his seat with about "4,315,015 pounds of force" (2.1). This would kill Santa.
Conclusion:
"If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now." (2.1)
Source:
1. http://www.daclarke.org...
=================================================
Contention 3: Santa and his crew would be incinerated upon an annual attempt.
The force described above would cause the lead reindeer to each experience "14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy" (3.1). They would be incinerated in this heat, and the same heat would incinerate the next two reindeer on down the line. The entire sleigh and reindeer would be incinerated in "4.26 thousandths of a second" (3.1). This would kill Santa.
Conclusion:
"If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now." (3.1)
Source:
1. http://www.daclarke.org...
=================================================
Conclusion:
Not anything exists, so Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead under hundreds of thousands of tons of pressure.
Even if Santa Claus existed, he'd be dead.under quintillions of joules of energy.

===> THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

Thank you wjmelements for accepting this debate, I can see that you are very talented.
I will try to keep this brief.

I will go through your contentions and show you your follies.

In your fist condition you use Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Occam's Razor is true. Some people choose to believe it, some people do not.
You said that there is no evidence as to the existence or nonexistence of the universe. That statement also is ineffectual is this debate because there is also no proof.

Your second and third contention could also be wrong. There are many new species of animals that are found every year. That means that there could be reindeer that Santa Claus has that could go extremely fast, pull any weight, and be able to fly without burning up.
There could also be some sort of protection suit that Santa Claus uses to keep himself safe, the sled could be made of special metals that prevent it from burning up.
Santa's sack could be made of special material that makes the gifts lightweight.

There are endless possibilities to what there could be.
If someone from the 1600's heard that you could send a message all the way across the world in a matter of seconds, they would not believe it. They would probably give say things like, ‘A ship would have to travel so fast it would catch on fire.' Or ‘all the letters would fall out of the ship'

Just because we do not know of things does not mean they can't exist, So far you have not proved to me that Santa Claus is not real.

I look forward to your next debate.

Sources:
(1). http://species.asu.edu...
(2). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
(4). http://www.explainthatstuff.com...
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a timely response.

1. Solipsism
My opponent holds two objections to this contention. The first is a question to the validity of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is a law of logic called the law of parsimony [1.3]. My opponent's objection to it is not warranted with any reliable source and is based in the a variation of argumentium ad Populum (http://philosophy.lander.edu...), a logical fallacy.
My opponent's second objection is that there is no evidence for my second premise, that both propositions of existence and nonexitstence of the universe share a lack of evidence. My opponent not only avoids providing a counterexampe, but also ignores my source [1.1], which argues that nothing is known besides the existence of one's own cognition, which does not require a universe.
For the purpose of going beyond reiteration, I will put forth a firmer argument for my second premise. There is no way to prove the existence of the universe without references to the universe itself, which may or may not be existent. The only arguments for the existence of the universe are circular. Further, the apparent existence of other minds are simply figments of one's imagination if the universe does not exist, so these minds cannot affirm the existence of the universe [1.4].
[1.3] http://www.2think.org...
[1.4] http://www.jstor.org...

2+3. The laws of physics
My opponent's claim of the existence of another species somehow perfectly capable of enduring quintillions of joules of energy is absurd.
As to the propostion that technology could progress to allow matter to be transported instantaneously, the simile this assumption is founded upon is fallacious. A message is not matter, but a letter is. To try to move a message over a given distance is possible, but to try to move a letter instantaneously would fail due to the laws of physics.
No innovation man can possibly concieve can overcome the laws of physics. Presents are matter, which can neither be created nor destroyed, and so their mass cannot be reduced.
1. All elements are gasses beyond 5660 degrees Celcius [2.2] at normal pressure.
2. "The state of matter is dependent therefore upon both the temperature and pressure of a given substance." Pressure causes states of matter to change at lower temperatures than usual. [2.3]
3. The sleigh is exposed to 4.315,015 pounds of centrifugal force and 14,300,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, which would vaporize any kind of matter [2.1], including any "protection suit" or undiscovered species of mammal.
My opponent's science fiction proposals must follow the laws of physics.
[2.2] http://www.science.co.il...
[2.3] http://physics.about.com...

CONCLUSION
My opponent's rebuttal was based on denial of the laws of logic and physics. His first source does not warrant the existence of species that might potentially break the laws of physics. His second and third sources are definitions, and his fourth source warrants the existence of materials that protect humans from temperatures that are like fingernails in solar systems compared with the temperatures that would have to be endured.

The Universe does not exist, so Santa does not exist.
Even if the universe did exist, Santa would not be able to survive.
The resolution is negated. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

Thank you for responding.
Before I begin I would like to make it clear to the audience that I am not trying to prove that Santa Claus is real. What I am trying to do is prove that my opponent cannot prove that he is not. I will not post a long response seeing that one is not needed.

Like I said before, there is not 100% proof that Occam's Razor is true. One cannot believe firmly in something just because it is a law of logic. It is funny how before Galileo, it was a law of logic that the planets all revolved around the earth. Humans do not know everything, therefore humans can make errors in laws of logic.

I was stating in my objection of your second premise that we cannot be 100% sure of the universe existing or not existing. So therefore we cannot use it as solid evidence to disprove Santa Claus.

What I was saying concerning breaking the laws of physics is that you just do not know everything. In life there is always a hidden variable. There is always time for error. Unless you know everything in the world, you cannot be 100% scientifically sure of anything.

Take my religion for example, I believe that God is real. I have no doubt about it. But, no matter how much Christian claim that God can be scientifically explained, he can't. That is why I do not debate the matter of God's existence. There is always an error in science. I am just using this as an example, please refrain from turning this into a religious debate.

My opponent has one more argument left, But so far he has failed to prove to me 100% that Santa Claus is not real. He has attempted to provide solid evidence but has failed. I can see that he is a skilled debater and I kindly thank him for accepting this. I heavily urge a pro vote. Thank you

Sources:
(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2). http://www.elisabethhubert.com...
(3). Bible
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

1. The Nonexistence of the Universe, and therefore Santa
My opponent constantly assumes that science could be wrong because religion has been wrong before. The non sequitor is visible.
First, that the planets all revolved around earth was neither a law of logic or a law of science, as a law of science originates from the scientific method, while this assumption originated from the Catholic Church[1][2], and a law of logic is logically undeniable, like modus ponens [3].

My opponent still has not negated my syllogism, and it stands. My opponent has provided no counterexample to my minor premise (he actually conceded it in round 3) and my major premise was never challenged.

My syllogism stands; the universe is not real, and so neither is Santa.

2. Santa's Death by Physics
My opponent asserts the existence of some hidden variable that would allow the breaking of the laws of physics.
a) Santa would have to have discovered such a variable.
b) There is no reason to believe such a variable exists.
c) No matter on Earth defies the laws of physics. All of the speculation of the nonapplication of universal laws is in dark matter [4] and antimatter [5], which is non abundant on this planet [6] [7] and cannot be sustained on Earth [7].

My opponent believes the resolution is negated because he has closed his eyes and not seen that there is no conceivable way Santa can exist. The resolution does not require me to convince him, but that I validly prove that Santa cannot be real, which was done with both logic and science.

The universe either exists or it doesn't.
If the universe doesn't exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contention 1)
If the universe does exist, then Santa doesn't exist. (Contentions 2 and 3)
Therefore, Santa doesn't exist.
The resolution is negated. Vote CON.

[1] http://wiki.answers.com...'t_the_center_of_the_universe (broken link)
[2] http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...
[3] http://www.allwords.com...
[4] http://www.newscientist.com...
[5] http://www2.corepower.com...
[6] http://www.universetoday.com...
[7] http://science.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Demosthenes, I KNEW YOU WERE AN ELF!
Posted by Demosthenes 7 years ago
Demosthenes
WJM I have some bad news for you... I talked to the man himself, and he finds your lack of faith disturbing.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
lol
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
lol
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
He was elected President. What more proof would anyone need?
Posted by Ange154 7 years ago
Ange154
Lolz, you try to shove logic into the face of Old Saint Nick, he's a magical saint, lolz and people, the theory is that he freezes time to get to all the houses, he is magic, so theories such as Occums Razor, excuse my spelling would not apply.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
NO wjmelements! DONT JUMP! I KNOW YOUR SAD ABOUT SANTA CLAUS, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 Pote 7 years ago
Pote
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 
Vote Placed by everyvillianislemons 7 years ago
everyvillianislemons
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
KoopinwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05