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

father christmas is real and alive

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,289 times Debate No: 28468
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I have some proof that the well known father Christmas is real and alive.


I accept, but I find this somewhat ridiculous-does this even need to be argued about? Is this even relevant? Okay, I will await my opponents arguments in the next round, so good luck and I hope we can have a good debate.

Back to you, pro, and you can now make your arguments.

(R1 for acceptance, R2 for arguments, R3 for rebuttals, R4 for rebuttals and no new arguments, R5 for final points and rebuttals, and conclusions.)
Debate Round No. 1


Father Christmas has existed for a long time. Children seem find things like slay marks or tapping on their roof tops. How would this be if father Christmas does not exist ?


Just to clarify, my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that father Christmas is real and alive, as he chooses to be pro on this argument, therefore that is what he is trying to prove to me and the audience: that Father Christmas is 'real and alive'. Therefore I only have to prove that he is wrong, disprove all of his arguments, also known as rebutt, and therefore if I can prove his arguments and points wrong, then I win as he has failed to prove his point, and my view on this matter, (con,) still still stands as correct.

Now onto the rebuttals:

1.)My opponent promptly states in R2, "Father Christmas has existed for a long time". When he does this, he fails to back up that statement with anything, doesn't show the audience and me, how he has even come to this conclusion, or even how in any way, shape, or form that this statement is even relevant, and he does not offer any reasons as to how this is not a personal opinion, or how this is logically backed up, or even proves why he says this. Therefore, I would like to request that my opponent please revise and fix this argument, for all of the reasons above-as there are many errors and mistakes that befuddle and have no relevance on this topic of this argument: which is, "Father Christmas is real and alive". Notice: nowhere in that title does it state that we are arguing over how long, (if real,) Father Christmas has been "Real and alive", as you still haven't proved that he exists, rather then how long he has been alive, or 'real'. So please, fix this argument for your next round, as currently it has no relevance on the argument at hand.

2.) The next point my opponent makes in his argument, is "Children seem to find things like slay marks or tapping on their roof tops." but he fails to provide where he got this information. Nor does he provide us with any source, reasoning, or logic/proof that children have found evidence of this. And furthermore-even if this was real evidence you are saying CHILDREN have found evidence of "slay marks or tapping on their roof tops". If this really happened, then wouldn't everyone in the world report problems relating to what you have described? Furthermore-you still have not linked the relevance of this point to the argument. Any outsider who does not know anything about how this has to do with the argument over "Father Christmas" exists would not even know the purpose of this statement. And yet again, you have not provided us with any proof or you haven't stated any reasons for this point to having held enough relevance to the argument, that you used it as one of your arguments. Please, if your going to use that point, add a source of RELIABLE INFORMATION, (AKA NOT WIKIPEDIA OR ASK.COM,) and prove to us the relevance, and logic behind this point.

3.) The next statement, (and last,) that my opponent makes is, "How would this be if father Christmas does not exist?" but I fail to see how father Christmas has anything to do with tapping on roof tops? I do know a couple causes of tapping, as many people know from logic and experience, rain will usually cause tapping noises to occur when it hits rooftops, therefore also could 100 percent explain the fact that you claim without evidence, that tapping is heard by children, (and you also do not specify where, when, and proof!) as rain is known to cause tapping on roof tops. Same applies to hail, ice, sleet, or even an mechanical/engineering problem with some equipment inside the child(s) house. Sometimes when equipment malfunctions, weird things happen with the mechanism such as
A.) Weird noises
B.) Smoke or other harmful gasses to come from the mechanism
C.) Mechanism may not work as properly intended
D.) Explosion or releasing of other harmful gases/liquid/material(s)

Could that explain for tapping? Even if it wasn't these causes-what makes the tapping that somehow automatically proves that 'Father Christmas' exists and is alive? I see no proof that automatically proves your side of this argument the one that is correct. And how could this be, even if father Christmas does exist? Answer that, and please fix your whole argument as I fail to see how anything you have said is relevant, or even proved correct and true, as you fail to correctly prove your side of this argument correct for all of the above reasons.

Arguments: Since my opponent has not put up any moderately good arguments for R2, (for any number of reasons unknown to me and the viewers,) I feel that I really won't have to provide too much arguments, in fact I'm not required to provide any as previously in this round, I stated how the BOP is on pro to prove himself correct, as he must prove that [Father Christmas] is "Real and alive", and so far he has failed to do so. But I digress.

1.) Since when, has 'magic' existed, for someone to use 'magical' reindeer to fly a sleigh, deliver presents to children all over the world, when magic doesn't, ( as far as we know ) exist in this day and age?

2.) Its weird that not everyone gets presents-and the fact is not everyone believes in Christmas, therefore they do not believe in any terms of the holiday, including Father Christmas. But it is claimed and widely know that father Christmas delivers presents to all the children everywhere in the world, so why is it that not everyone gets presents? Can father Christmas go through a chimney when their is no chimney?

3.) Also, think of the plain logic-theres too many people and the time zones and countries-father Christmas would have to deliver presents to houses 0.5 seconds per house, ( on a scale of a ballpark estimate of every house on the planet, and that is what it was around,) and that is just plain impossible, and ridiculous.

Back to you, con.
Debate Round No. 2


You are right as in saying that roof tapping can be false but it never happened any other time of year. Proof: I was one of those children that experienced noises and slay marks, yet I have never reported it on the news and nether have my parents . Now I think back and know that it must have been him who brought me presents and him who made roof tapping as he did in the famous poem : Twas the night before Christmas, as his reindeer are meant to fly and land on rooftops but have some time on the ground. I also found that it was the naughty children that did not believe in him and the nice would believe father Christmas for reasons of proof . His reindeer must be very fast and he must be prepared to make an almost impossible journey every Christmas. And as for the last rebuttal, I will say that father Christmas must manage to keep top secret in the heart of Lapland ( the North pole impossible for any human being to live in).


"You are right as in saying that roof tapping can be false but it never happened any other time of year."

I would like to begin, with the breakdown and basic rebuttals of everything my opponent used as an argument or point.

With this sentence, my opponent fails to spell and grammaratize correctly as it should be fixed to, "...any other time of THE year," ('the' is only in caps to show what needs to be added,) therefore should be noted and put down for some obvious spelling and grammar errorrs in all of the rounds so far.

1.) My opponent begins by saying that he accepts my points, and that he beleives me to be correct, but then proceeds to say something that cannot be translated into English, "but it never happened any other time of year". What led you to changing the subject so abruptly, and how does this hold relevance to your arguments? Does this even have any argumental or debate worth? I fail to see how tapping has anything to do at this unknown time of the year, (as you even failed to tell the audience what timer of the year that [roof tapping], occurs, therefore we can not even understand what your saying, much less then the audience seeing any kind of relevance this weird, badly spelled, false statement has to the argument,) and I fail to see what father christmas even has to do with tapping occuring in only certain times of the year. Please specify, and note that you have accepted my point in that sentence, therefore the point goes to con, ( your rebuttal, or whatever you tried to attempt after the 'but' in the sentence is too messed up and doesn't make any sense, or hold any relevant meaning, so we can not automatically see your point in telling us a statement, that doesn't even hold any relevance to your argument.

2.)The next thing my opponent says is this, "Proof: I was one of those children that that experienced noises and slay marks, yet I have never reported i ont he news and ((BEWARE SPELLING ERROR AHEAD)) nether have my parents."(fixed your period spacing for you,).

I yet again, address the problem of relevance, and how we can even deem whatever you say, automatically and one hundred percent true. Humans lie, and have biased opinions. It's not even close to proof when you say that it happened, for an example I could say "The world is flat, because I know its flat," but that doesn't have anything in there that proves you right, in any way shape or form. Oh my gosh-good job *gold star :)* you are experiencing the realization of the fact that people LIE and proof is not just saying, "because I experienced it." I could say the same thing; I've never seen any tapping or slay marks, therefore I am one hundred percent correct and you are not, as I witnessed no slay marks tapping, see my point?

Next, for the second part of what m opponent says, he says "yet i have never reported it on the news and nether have my parents," and please if you can't undestand the error in spelling, my opponent meant to write 'neither' not 'nether', so sorry if you were confused. Were we even talking about news? What the freaking heck does this have to do with ANYTHING?! So what? Who said anything about your parents? Even if you tried to report it to the news, realize how stupid you would sound, (in their opinion, as take this as an example,) heres an example: "I AM SMART BECAUSE I KNOW I AM SMART THEREFORE I AM SMART." is a dumb thing to say, and has no relevance on anything that we are talking about in this argument.

My opponents weird statement about his word being law has been rebutted, therefore it is upon my opponent to provide more proof to back up this argument, or the point goe to Con.

3.) After that, my opponent says "Now I think back and know that it must have been him who brght me presents and who made the roof tapping as he did in the famus poem : Twas the night befoer Christmas, as his reindeer are meant to fly and land on rooftops but have some time on the ground."

Now, straight to the chase, I don't get how him knowing something even proves anything as I could just say, "Well I know that Father Christmas doesn't exist," would that make sense? Of course not, which is exactly why the statement, "Now I think back and know that it must have been him who bruoght me presents.." is just a non-essential peice of garbage statment, along with mostly everything you've wrote as 'points', that should NOT be even brought into this debate. This proves nothing, and holds absolutely no relevance to the argument at hand, so please stop using your word as law and absolute evidence to back up anything, as YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE! And probably, you haven't convinced anyone yet as far every one of your points has not made sense in any way.

This point has been rebutted, therefore it lies on Pro to back up his statement with more proof and other evidence that can turn it into a real point instead of a baseless statement, along with everthing else so far thats baselses, otherwise the point goes to Con.

4.) Where my opponent goes in about the poem, I really dont want to have to get into this viewers, I only have a ltitle bit of characters left, and I'm repeating the same rebuttal for each of my opponents baseless lie-statements, so I will be breif.
You have not sourced this poem.
How does this hold relevance?
How is this one hundred precent true?
You forgot to put quotes in, so your commiting plagirism by not sourcing and not showing quotes...
How is this poem famous?

My opponent must rebutt these questions and points, or the point will go to Con if he gives up this argument.

5.) I really am not sure when he ends the poem, as he never put quotes in to show the begginging and your grammar and spelling really should be graded on this, as no one can tell where the poem begins, and ends...
For the remaining part about reindeer, there holds no relevance that reindeer can be so fast, that they can deliver about 10 presents in 0.5 seconds to every house in the world, (which, lets just say, is above 2 billion,) and not to mention the fact that Santa has to get in and out each house in such a quick speed that he doesn't delay the 'super fast' 'magical' reindeer by a hundreth of a second otherwise he wouldn't be able to deliver all the presents to everyone in the world.

My opponent must prove this statement relevant, and prove how this even is a rebuttal to the argument I made in the last round, as above I pointed out how it is an impossibility for reindeer to be that fast...

6.)My opponent finished his arguments with saying that his last rebuttal, (he hasn't made any arguments yet, so he should at least make arguments before he rebutts mine as he still has NOT proven himself correct,) is hat "I will say father Christmas must manage to keep top secret in the heart of Lapland." AGAIN NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE OR RELEVANCE!! WHO CARES? THIS HAS NOTHING DO WITH THE ARGUMENT! Sorry, so angry at having to even deal with this stupid response over and over...

All my arguments and rebuttals stand, from the last round, therefore it seems that my opponent has given me all the points and given up on every argument and rebuttal I made, therefore I guess all my points are accepted by my opponent? Unless he fixes this, everything I have said has been dropped by Pro, therefore I have had my opponent give up his stance in this argument if he fails to address my rebuttals and arguments properly.
Debate Round No. 3


1.) It appears that my opponent fails to understand that reindeer have hooves and that hooves make noise. My opponent also fails to understand that the debate is about Santa Clause and not my spelling mistakes.

2.) It is hypocritical of you to say that my spelling is terrible and that I miss out words, as instead of saying "that" you appear to talk about hats.

3.) What time of year do you expect the night before Christmas to be, middle of summer ?

4.) Father Christmas is kept secret so people don't find him.

5.) if you cannot translate English into English then you should read more carefully, and as for my final point: You should argue about Father Christmas and not anything else. Oh andone more thing: why would I lie in a debate ?


Firstly, I would like to thank the viewers, and my opponent for such a well-thought-out debate, and thank you for taking the time to either debate/view as I too am enjoying this debate.

Now, in terms of the argument, my opponent has repeatedly failed to PROPERLY address/rebutt all of my points presented in R2, and R3, and the following points are hat he has failed to address into this argument so far, therefore if no argument against these points are presented, then he has dropped all the arguments, therefore all of my points are correct.

1.) How can you prove that father Christmas is around for a long time?
2.) You have never sourced any accurate website/book/magazine that proves your evidence as valid.
3.) You have not yet proven that "Father Christmas" is alive and real, as now you are geting off topic about tapping hooves, sleigh marks-yet you fail to even identy to me and the audience, who this person known to you as 'father Christmas' is, and how reindeer hoof tapping, and sleigh marks have anything to do with this 'father Christmas'. Not everyone here knows who father christmas is, so I will be a person who knows nothing about christmas-your speaking jibberish so far as your terms that I can't understand like father christmas, have not been defined therefore I will make up my own personal meaning for father christmas:

A car made of snow.

Because my opponent has not defined the noun known as father christmas, then I have helped my opposition by defining this noun, therefore I'm now arguing both sides.

Father Christmas now means a car made of snow, unless my opponent proves otherwise.

4.) Irrelevant arguments: Self explanitory. If you don't get it, then please deactive your account and go outside :)

5.) Horrible grammar-In case you do not know, (which you probably do not,) voters vote on this debate based on GRAMMAR AND SPELLING, and other topics. So yeah, it does matter and your insult towards me as in R4 you call me 'hypocritical', whereas I am helping the voters since you apparently have never voted before, or just do not get the voting system. Also, voters vote on conduct so you might want to watch the insults :(

6.) Finally, my opponent has defined when this holiday known as 'Christmas', is celebrated, as he says and defines when this takes place in R4, as "...midle of summer.." so for everyone in the audience who is not christian, (which I believe my opposition fails to consider, as he automatically considers everyone in this debate a pure christian, and is discriminating and by saying "what time of the year do you expect the night before christmas to be" he insults everyone in this debate and discriminates against those who do not know what Christmas is, but I can conclude that since the night before Christmas is defined by my opponent as in "middle of summer" then I can expect Christmas to be in the summer as well.

7.) Again in r4 my opponent does not prove to us that reindeer have hooves, and just like previously when I stated that this holds as much validity as me saying "I am the sun, and my word superior therefore this statement is valid", as they both hold the same example of complete dumbness from the speaker, as my opponent fails to understand how to read my rebuttals, as this statement is directed towards other one of my opponents insults as he says, "It appears that my opponent fails to understnd that reindeer have hooves and that hooves make noise." Again, I fail to see how father christmas is real and alive because my opponents superior, unlying word, (for those of you who don't know irony, my opponents invalid, false statements of feelings and opinions made to look like fact,) declares that animals have hooves and hooves make noise, which again he fails to define how these hooves make noise, (singing? talking? dancing? it coud be anything, ladies and gentlemen,) and unless this 'father christmas' is a reindeer, I fail to see how this is relevant to a human being, and how reindeer might be associated with 'father christmas', as my opponent yet again does not prove how reindeer have anything to do with 'chist-mas' which is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, not tapping hooves!

8.) My opponent states, "My opponent also fails to understand that debate is about Santa Clause and not my spelling mistakes." and I would like to say this back to my opposition, but fxing the structure of the sentence, "My opposoition fails to understand that this debate is full of irrelevant, lying, baseless, and insults coming from pro, and does not understand HOW to debate it seems, unless my opponent can show more 'skillful' arguments." Don't worry if you don't understand what i'm saying pro, i'm sure the voters will, and thats all that really matters.

Do I really have to go any further? If your a viewer, it's plainly obvious how irrelevant and invalid my opponents arguments are, and EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT OF MINE HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED, THEREFORE I WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT SO FAR!!! Also, to help you out with voting, my opponent has FAILED to even prove his half of the argument, he has NOT PROVEN THAT FATHER CHRISTMAS IS REAL AND ALIVE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!!!
Debate Round No. 4


1.) My opponent seems to think that someone who does not know who Father Christmas is would think it would be a snow car. I will begin to say that my opponent is wrong for a car in the well spoken language English is referd to as 'she' and not 'he'.
2.) You must remember, the voters will be judging your politeness as well as mine. 3.) If you had read my arguments more carefully you would have found out that I was prooving my point correct. Please read the following 1. I have prooved that Father Christmas rides in a sleigh with reindeer and that 'HE' delivers presents. 2. Father Christmas is alive (no snow car can be alive ). 3. Lying is of no intersest to me in a debate. 4. I would not die to proove my point so why would I try to do so (in lying in a debate) . And last I shall say that my opponents main wepon is hipocricy in every way. Oh and before you start it I shall tell you that I had some problems with the typing ( I thought I should tell you otherwise you would be making a racket).


Firewolfman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sherlock.holmes221B 4 years ago
I have never seen a debate before with such an argument (not good debate but so much bickering). No need to fight about it
Posted by Firewolfman 5 years ago
Oops sorry, meant to write "back to you, pro" my bad xD
No votes have been placed for this debate.