The statement "Santa Clause doesn't exist" is false.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
-Resolution- The statement "Santa Clause doesn't exist" is false.
Wagyu's burden of proof = The statement "Santa Clause doesn't exist" is false.
Contender's burden of proof = The statement "Santa Clause doesn't exist" is true.
-General Rules-
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Since this is a thought experiment, sources are not essential
3. Burden of Proof is shared
Definition of exist in English:intransitive verb
1 Have objective reality or being.‘there existed no organization to cope with espionage’
You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning.
Santa doesn't exist because Santa doesn't have objective reality or being.
There are two competing definitions for exist at play here. The usual and ordinary meaning, which favours myself, and the special meaning from philosophy, which favours Pro.
If it is not clear enough already, my belief is that "Santa Clause exists as an idea/thought", I do not believe in a physical Santa Clause delivering presents. But the later does not need to be proved in order for me to satisfy my BoP. If I can prove that "Santa Clause exists as an idea", then we can conclude that, since my ideas exist, Santa clause must therefore also exist.
Pro's argument is predicated entirely on using the word "exist" within the resolution in a manner that is substantially different from the usual and ordinary meaning of the word.
- You accuse me of using the sketchy definition in my own favour
- After being called out that I am in fact using your definition, ignore the point I have raised.
- Left all my questions to you unrebutted.
- Left my whole argument unrebutted.
It is obvious that Santa exists as an idea
It is obvious that Santa exists as an ideaDeath23
Pro admits that Santa Clause has no objective,physical existence. That is a concession. This debate is over.
Pro had the start to a good case on the subjective nature of existence, but it lacked follow through on other related angles of attack, which made con able to counter on that the core point of language and legal ruling for how it is interpreted.
Plus, Pro majorly did himself in with his own offered definitions, including the copy/pasted links within. A little advice: This was a time to cherry pick definitions, rather than showing one that says to exist is to be real.
This debate is extra neat to me, because I've used pro's arguments before. A good way to strengthen this argument, is pointing out not merely that Santa Claus exists within the subject of a sentence, but places he exists even as a fictional character in marketing campaigns. The comparison to Harry Potter was a good start to this (even if Harry Potter existing would not directly prove that every other fictional character does likewise).
Sources are a little light, but with pro shooting himself in the foot, and con's legal practice one really enhancing the impacts to his claim of how language is interpreted, I've got to give credit where it is due.
Whenever the specific meaning of a term is debated between two or more definitions - there are a couple of ways to choose the one that fits the most aptly. Topicality - which is basically just asking if the definition used fits in with the context of the situation specifically, Frequency - especially whenever we are talking about interpreting the resolution, the actual use of the word and how much definitions are used should come into play, and Justification - the specific reasoning that we are using this definition over another definition. Pro has provided no reason to prefer his definition, and given by the definition that has be defended by Con specifically - both debaters agree that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Pro's entire argument is semantics and a misunderstanding of language.
weird semantic debate. I buy that Pro's big idea that philosophical existence being poorly defined is true -- Con pointed out that even in court, the simplest definition would suffice. Pro gave no reasons why the philosophy is preferable to basic of definition.
Damn I really took a fat L here. Had to try this kritik though, it was too fun not to.
Thank you for the vote. Perhaps in the future another debate like this will happen.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I read the debate to see if this vote was glossing over major areas of contention, but no, thus was the core of the debate with a fair conclusion. That it gave feedback to suggest how pro could have done better, does not invalidate it.
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
"Pro has to show that Santa Clause exists"
and yet...
I could have changed the resolution to "asdfewr doesn't exits" and I can still make my case. Nevertheless, the name "Santa Clause" was used in a famous Christmas movie so I'm sure my point was conveyed.
to be fair, Jarrett successfully argued for the Kalam Cosmetological argument, despite it also non existing
Of course “Santa Clause” doesn’t exist. It is spelled Santa Claus.
This is the same as saying that “Georg Washingten is the 1st president of the United States” is false.
define "exist" and define "Santa Claus"