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: 1,397 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 21 through 28 records.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady Christmas is a lie to tell lies to your kids like "Santa Claus is real" "Reindeers do fly" "snowmen talk" and "Santa comes to every house every night"
Christmas is all about lying
Here is the video to support my claim
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady even if you had evidence for that "Christmas truce of 1914" I still wouldn't count that either because most likely than not, those accounts I've seen in a recent article are forged to conform history with holiday belief, but still are not true.
That still doesn't mean that churches don't slaughter children because they don't believe in Christmas.
Just another assertion I can easily refute.
There, I refuted again!
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady "Families are brought together where they can settle there differences, and the community comes together and has a sense of brotherhood."
Where is evidence, I mean solid imperical evidence like a link, video, or article.
You present no link
And with that quoted statement in that argument that way, it's an excuse statement not to refute my argument, asserting something that has no solid imperical evidence to back it up.

The con did not refute.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
In my other comment, I spelt bringing wrong, but a misspelling like that isn't necessarily in my argument.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
Vote pro because he has evidence (as a rant video with only 2 views or more) that still have evidence, he doesn't have any spelling errors, he is not irrelevant, he is not unreliable when it comes to brining evidence or in this case videos, he explained perfectly.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady Also, just because a video has 2 views, doesn't necessarily mean that it's "meaningless"
It would only mean, that it isn't really popular, not meaningless
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
@JimShady if you had the facts, where is the evidence, Here are the reasons why you are wrong:

[1] You didn't show a sign of evidence or a link to support your statement, and you bring no evidence to suggest that Christmas can "save lives"
[2] You misspelt games
[3] World War One has nothing to do with Christmas, You have no evidence to connect World War One with Christmas or you didn't at least present a link to an article as evidence.
[4] You did not explain part of your argument in which you said "Christmas should not be banned because it's good effects far outweigh it's negative effects." just made an assertion without backing it up or explaining it more.
[5] You have no evidence that people who don't believe in Christmas are not being slaughtered or killed
[6] You don't have the facts, you are not specific, you are irrelevant.
[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.

For voters:
vote for pro.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 3 years ago
SuperTrooper44
Waiting for con to respond

@JimShady I'm waiting for you
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.