The Instigator
SuperTrooper44
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Bryan Mullins Logic: Christmas Is A Big Distraction For Murder, Christmas Should Be Ban

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
JimShady
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,396 times Debate No: 102590
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)

 

SuperTrooper44

Pro

Since in this rant video:
Bryan Mullins says he is proud that the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children has been proven and the Christmas is a big distraction for murder.

Christmas cartoon icons like Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer, Frosty The Snowman, and Santa Claus are truly big distractions to distract your kids into believing lies and to distract children from the fact that churches are slaughtering America's children for not believing in it.
Dancing toys and women sexualizing themselves like the female dancing toys that sing "Santa Baby" is also one of their distraction techniques, singing, caroling, and kissing under the "mistletoe" are distraction techniques too.
Christmas should be banned because we should not have to be slaughtered for not believing in it.
We should have freedom of opinion for believing different but not to be killed

So, vote for pro.
JimShady

Con

People who do not believe in Christmas are not killed in any country that I know of. Now, there may be one or two instances where a HIGHLY radical Catholic or Christian killed someone for not believing in the holiday, but instances like this, if there are even ANY, will be extremely rare. Christmas should not be banned because it's good effects far outweigh it's negative effects. Families are brought together where they can settle there differences, and the community comes together and has a sense of brotherhood.

In some cases, Christmas has helped save lives. Of course poor people can get nourishment especially on this holiday, but let's not forget the Christmas Truce in 1914, during the first winter of WWI. British and German troops laid down their weapons and met in No Man's Land to exchange cigarettes and play a few gams and just hang out for a little between war.

Pro has posted a meaningless video with 2 views that has no evidence whatsoever. Vote Con because he has facts.
Debate Round No. 1
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Vote for the pro, because He did better

@SuperTrooper44 I'm freaking proud of you, I know the con truly lost, but voters wanted the con to win, but they have of Lack of RFD
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 3 years ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@whiteflame thank you for removing that vote, i hope you remove the other stupid vote.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument relies heavily on the fact that 1) Christmas is a distraction technique, and 2) Churches are slaughtering children. I feel like all he's doing is an Appeal to Emotion/Fear. Con points out that it's highly unlikely Pro's assumptions are true, and Christmas, as far as we're concerned, helps families be happy together. In the debate itself, Pro has 0 actual arguments, so arguments to Con. Pro's main source seems to have been created by himself, and the first 2 minutes don't have any actual arguments or information. A video made by yourself is of course going to be biased, but it mainly has no evidence, like Con pointed out. Sources to Con since Pro heavily lacks a good source.

[*Reason for removal*] Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess sources given by both sides in the debate, and only assesses Pro"s sources in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
Thanks for the heads up.
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
Mharman
Don't even bother, Jim. He's a multi-accounting troll. SuperTrooper44 is just a sub-account of BryanMullinsNOCHRISTAMS2. He often debates himself to get free wins.
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
In summary, my opponent has not given a shred of evidence, while I have. He has chosen to continue this debate in the comments when he should've added more rounds with more characters. Naturally I had to respond to make it fair. Take that into account for conduct. I have provided more reliable sources than his dumb videos, so think about that in sources, and also consider that he has worse grammar than me. Don't forget his foolish arguments when you give points for Convincing Arguments. Thank you.
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
Pro says "[7] Even if I presented my argument, if I'm downing your belief, it would be irrelevant if you ask me "give me evidence to prove that churches slaughter innocent children for not believing in Christmas" because that would just mean that my argument is just discouraging your feelings."

How the FVCK would asking you to provide evidence be irrelevant? Isn't evidence a MAJOR part of debates?!?! My feelings aren't discouraged, if anything they are bolstered by you lack of an argument.

The video is meaningless because it has no meaningful point. It has no evidence, and like you said, it is just a rant. I only brought up the 2 views to show that no one believes it at all. Why believe something that isn't true?

It is so obvious that families come together on Christmas that I figured I didn't need a source. But since you are asking for some, here they are:

1. http://militarybenefits.info.... http://www.stuff.co.nz...
3. https://www.news-mail.com.au...

This is just 3 out of hundreds of articles. The point of families coming together and spreading love is not irrelevant. Love and togetherness is the opposite of hate and murder, so that's why I brought it up. While the songs of Christmas are fictional, that's OK. It's not really a lie. Would you say that Spider-Man is a lie, or Harry Potter? No, they are just stories and characters that bring joy to people, not distract them from nonexistent Christmas murder.
Posted by JimShady 3 years ago
JimShady
SuperTrooper44, you are either the biggest troll or most gullible person ever. First off, I was about to put a source in about the Christmas Truce, but character limitations prevented me from doing so. Here it is though, and it is from a reliable source, History.com. http://www.history.com....

The next fault of SuperTrooper is that he points out one misspelled word, "game". He sees that my argument is so good and thus has to nitpick it for miniscule mistakes. Since you are doing that though, I'll do it too. "Bryan Mullins says he is proud that the fact that... " should be "proud OF the fact." Your second paragraph is a huge run-on sentence. His second to last sentence is grammatically incorrect and lacks a period. Clearly, Pro has worse English skills.

Pro complains I did not explain my argument. Maybe he just doesn't understand English. And what a hypocrite! Your video/debate argument has no sources whatsoever, and yet you cry that I didn't have any (cause of character limits). You have not proved at all or given a shred of evidence that Christmas kills people.

On my side, I do not have to have evidence that people who don't believe in Christmas are killed. You are the one making the accusation, therefore you have the burden of proof. If I said that Unicorns are at my house, would it be my job to prove they were or your job to prove there weren't? It would be MY job. In the same way, it is your job to prove that kids have been slaughtered and so far you have just said they are, not evidence.

Pro says "You don't have facts, you are not specific, you are irrelevant." I do have facts, demonstrated by my source, I am specific, at least more specific than you, and how am I irrelevant? In one of your comments you claim "Christmas is all about lying." I thought it was all about slaughter. On the other hand, I stay with the topic.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady we're not talking about families coming together, even though that statement is pointless because families get together all the time more that that one day. We're talking about Christmas as being a distraction for murder.
Let me explain, You're told all these lies and excuses to take you away from the truth that churches slaughter innocent children for not believing in Christmas, which is a violation of the constitutional rights of a child, Like in which these violated rights would be Life and Liberty.
Also, it has nothing to do with brotherhood, that is also a pointless argument to make.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady It would be a pointless and irrelevant argument if you say "give me proof that churches slaughter America's children for not believing in Christmas."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
SuperTrooper44JimShadyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro entering this debate had a burden: to prove that children are factually being slaughtered, and Christmas is to distract us from it. Apparently he's serious about this too. Either way, pro needed to provide some evidence that this was actually happening in the real world according to real evidence. Con points out that pro didn't prove anything and that there's no evidence that pro could've found to begin with. He also throws in a couple positives to christmas to finish off his argument. So con wins arguments, because pro failed to uphold his burden.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
PowerPikachu21
SuperTrooper44JimShadyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument relies heavily on the fact that 1) Christmas is a distraction technique, and 2) Churches are slaughtering children. I feel like all he's doing is an Appeal to Emotion/Fear. Con points out that it's highly unlikely Pro's assumptions are true, and Christmas, as far as we're concerned, helps families be happy together. In the debate itself, Pro has 0 actual arguments, so arguments to Con. Pro's source doesn't contain actual information, and just restates his opinion with added details that go unsupported. Con never used a source at all, so sources are tied.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.