Instigator / Pro
0
1469
rating
341
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#3955

Bible believers should not engage in or celebrate Christmas December 25th

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Bible believers are the ones that practice and believe to what is taught as written, specifically as written according to the Bible.

If you don't know what a Bible is, please find out or ask. Ask your questions now before accepting the debate or prior to its open participation.

It is appreciated and it is honest.

It is also noteworthy to not ignore what is being said, please.

Now that it has been said. Those believers are the ones mentioned here.

So called Christmas holiday celebration really explains itself. The observation, festive engagement, interaction socially, politically attaching the 25th of December.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Before I get into it, I will just layout the foundation so we're all clear on what we're talking about.

This topic is concerning Bible believers. Those of whom that are not only hearers but doers of the words of scripture. They seek to live in accordance to it.

Not to be confused or conflated with folks that just wear titles and the title religion.

Ok I think we have that straight. The believers go about as it is written, whatsoever things written before time.

Let's start here with something very basic such as a question.

Scripture says as it is written, honor thy mother and father, that's not the same as honoring off and on, is it?

It's not to honor one day and not another. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the same with this topic. A believer living according to scripture has to be very careful, following razor sharp specific to the text.

There are those that gloss over this point looking for something that they're more prepared to refute.

Perhaps the more typical argument people expect is to find or a provided scripture that states specifically don't do this or that.

Just like there's no scripture that says not to a pick a date for mother's day or a selected time to honor and respect the father for example.

So nice and simple,it is written to honor thy mother and father, can that be honored by making an anniversary to do so?



Con
#2
I would like to start this debate by wishing blessing upon my opponent as we are both men of the faith. I wish to enlighten you to some potential argumentation in favor of the celebration of Christmas. Before I begin with my argumentation, I would like to begin with the background of the debate. 

I - Background

While the title does not transfer completely due to my opponent not copying it, I will share the original title of the debate that the topic is based off of.
“Bible believers should not be supportive and or engage in Christmas celebration.”
The current title for this debate is as follows:
“Bible believers should not engage in or celebrate Christmas December 25th”
Since we now have the context of both titles, we can now go further into what needs to be proven here. First, while this is a debate for the enlightenment of each other and exchange of ideas, the burden of proof must be established. Since my opponent is both the affirmative and seeks to challenge an established cultural/religious norm, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders. In other words, he must prove that Bible believers have more reasons to not engage with Christmas than to just celebrate the holiday. Due to this, I must simply give reasons as to why people who believe in the Bible may want to continue practicing this holiday. With this clarified, let us begin.

II - Religious Basis

Christmas is a holiday celebrating the birth of Christ. We can take this from two perspectives:

  1. The celebration does not directly occur on the date of December 25th, but commemorates Christ’s birth into this world.
  2. The celebration has evidence that the birth of Christ may occur on December 25th, and we are directly celebrating his birth.

Both of these perspectives are more than reasonable. In my next point, I will show how it is advantageous to practice Christmas even if it does not fall on the direct birthdate of Christ. However, there are certain Biblical proofs to suggest that Christ may have been born on the 25th of December.

While the exact date of his birth is never directly stated in the Bible, we can cross-reference the dates of events happening around the time Mary was pregnant to estimate the rough time of Jesus’ birth.

And, behold, your cousin Elizabeth, she has also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. (Luke 1:36)”
My source explains it well and succinctly (5).

“ At the end of the conversation with Mary, Gabriel reportedly said that Elizabeth's current pregnancy was at 6 months of gestation. Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist on 17th of Tishri 3756.

That Mary got pregnant on 17th of Nisan 3756 is also known from Gabriel's visit to Mary, informing that Elizabeth had also conceived.

Given Gabriel visited Mary on 17th of Nisan 3756, Mary got pregnant with Jesus Christ on 17th of Nisan 3756 as well.

The 17th of Nisan 3756 Hebrew Calendar falls on March 25th, 5 AD Julian Calendar.

Hebrew Calendar      Julian Calendar        Gregorian Calendar
17th of Nisan 3756    March 25th, 5 AD       March 23rd, 5 AD

In conclusion, Mary got pregnant on 17th of Nisan 3756 Hebrew Calendar or March 25th, 5 AD Julian Calendar, at the time of Gabriel's visit to her. “Mary and the angel” story is always an important part of any Christmas story. Without it we would never have Christmas on December 25.”

Assuming she would have a normal nine-month gestation period, the date of December 25th makes Biblical sense to attribute it to the birth of Christ.

III - Cultural Basis

Whether you are Christian or simply believe in parts of the Bible, you must believe that it is your duty to spread the Gospel so that other people may be saved. Part of this message is allowing for the opportunity for others to hear the Word of God. Cultural practices are a significant tie into religion. (1) People are more likely to be drawn towards/practice a religion that is venerated in their culture. The secularization of the western world makes apostasy more common when compared to other religions such as Islam. Religions mainly grow through the birth of people in countries dominated by said religion. (2) (3). If you notice, religions with either a high social-cohesion and/or high penalties for apostasy tend to not only keep their followers, but grow naturally through reproduction. 

Christmas plays the role of an important cultural tradition in the western world; it is one of the few cultural practices left after the harsh secularization attempts in the west. This holiday is premised on the glory of Christ. There is an intrinsic link between Christ and Christmas. This is why, as British Christians and Bible believers become more of a minority, more calls are taken to cancel or simply reduce the reach of Christmas (4). 

Whether you believe Christmas to be a particularly Christian holiday or not, people who end up venerating Christian traditions are drawn to read the Bible and take the time to investigate the faith. This is why, despite the numerous sects of Islam, their holidays and apostasy laws are maintained with feverish reverence in their majority countries. The people there understand the importance of the masses indulging in these holidays in both a cultural and religious sense. As a result, their apostasy rates are substantially lower than other religions such as Christianity and people who believe in the Bible.

Due to this, the preservation of Christian holidays and practices not only benefits the Christian faith, but all denominations and people who believe in the Bible as it brings people to seek out God’s word, instates Christian values in the civilization, and creates an environment where people born in a particular place will have cultural pressure to investigate Christ without needing to go against the mainstream norm of secularism. 

If Christmas were to stop being practiced by Bible believers, then it would simply become secularized into a generic “Winter Holiday”, where all religions would be pushed to celebrate their holy days. This would be the equivalent to shooting all sects of Bible believers, from Christians to Catholics to Orthodox, in the foot. Apostasy would increase along with further trends of the mainstream going against the teaching of Christ. At this point, this is the last thing we need right now. 

IV - Argument from Veneration/Ethical Argument

Celebrating the birth of Christ seeks to honor Jesus through a special day of remembrance. This comes from a genuine desire to love him and engage in a celebration that the whole society can partake in. Even people who would normally not classify themselves as religious can indulge in the festivities and celebration of Christmas, while the event itself works to normalize Christianity further into the culture to gain more followers. 

This special day of celebration and remembrance crosses boundaries throughout sociological and economic levels, which leads to the message of Christ being more likely to be heard throughout society. Whether you are a Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or any other sect, everyone is welcome to use this day for camaraderie and remembrance of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The fact that different societies can come together to honor our Savior is a beautiful thing, and that should be preserved.

V - Rebuttals:


Scripture says as it is written, honor thy mother and father, that's not the same as honoring off and on, is it?

It's not to honor one day and not another. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree, people should honor Jesus throughout their daily lives during all days. However, I already addressed this in the cultural argument. Plenty of people simply do not do so since they are either not very religious or simply do not believe in the Bible. Not only does Christmas impact the culture to gain more followers to religions who seek to follow the Bible and people who seek the Bible alone, but it ensures that less apostasy will follow, meaning more people will identify with the Bible long enough to actually hear the message. Additionally, assuming everyone who believes in the Bible will be able to convince others to do so without these cultural events is unrealistic and simply shoots ourselves in the feet.

Lastly, one can specify a special day to give reverence to something/someone while honoring them throughout the year. Take the birthday of your wife for instance. You may honor her, treat her very well, and go out of your way for her for every day of your life since you met her. However, her birthday is special; you plan out a particular celebration to ensure that she feels special and other people who would normally not give her the time of day can honor her as well. Celebrating that day doesn't suddenly make you not value or honor your wife the other 364 days of the year. You simply make one particular day as a time of group celebration where others can participate and you put an extraordinary amount of effort into.

There are those that gloss over this point looking for something that they're more prepared to refute.

Perhaps the more typical argument people expect is to find or a provided scripture that states specifically don't do this or that.

Just like there's no scripture that says not to a pick a date for mother's day or a selected time to honor and respect the father for example.

So nice and simple,it is written to honor thy mother and father, can that be honored by making an anniversary to do so?
I believe that this a similar point to what I just refuted. A celebration once a year in the context of Christmas simply seeks to honor Jesus in the culture, assert the dominance of religions based on Christianity in the culture to gain more followers, and share the festivities during the time of Jesus. It works to fuse culture with religion to spread the influence of these beliefs. This is a net-good for Bible believers since this act seeks to spread the Gospel through the observance of cultural events which venerate Christ. 


VI - Conclusion

- Christmas assists the cultural dominance of Bible believers over other religions who seek to misguide the people.
- Christianity and Bible believers benefit from Christmas.
- Christmas allows more people to hear the Gospel and seek Christ.
- Therefore, Bible believers should celebrate Christmas.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"In other words, he must prove that Bible believers have more reasons to not engage with Christmas than to just celebrate the holiday."

I only have to show and have shown one reason according to the nature of a Bible believer which is more than a hearer of the Bible.

I'm only speaking the fact regarding a specific group of people. I won't allow any homogenization.

"The celebration does not directly occur on the date of December 25th, but commemorates Christ’s birth into this world."

We have to be clear on everything and all these terms, every single one of them passed back and forth between us.

When does the celebration occur?

When speaking about Christmas in this context, I'm specifically referencing the celebration designated to the 25th of December.

By you moving it from that like moving the goal post, it's like admitting you have no refutation where the context has been established in this topic.

"I will show how it is advantageous to practice Christmas even if it does not fall on the direct birthdate of Christ. "

This is not even the topic about it being advantageous. I want to steer this on the rails. Bible believers according to this topic should not engage in this December 25th celebration. Why ? Bible believers according to this topic only practice what's directed by scripture.

That means you'd have to show how they are still in compliance with designating a time to celebrate Christ according to scripture. It's not by what is advantageous.

"However, there are certain Biblical proofs to suggest that Christ may have been born on the 25th of December."

I think you'd admit it's besides the point. If you're trying to argue in favor of celebrating without the knowledge of the exact birthdate, it'd be a moot point.

"While the exact date of his birth is never directly stated in the Bible, we can cross-reference the dates of events happening around the time Mary was pregnant to estimate the rough time of Jesus’ birth."

Are you trying to argue that if we can get a rough estimate for the time of date, it'd be permitted to designate it as time to honor Christ the Son?

"Assuming she would have a normal nine-month gestation period, the date of December 25th makes Biblical sense to attribute it to the birth of Christ."

But does the Bible teach to designate honor and celebration to a date?

"Christmas plays the role of an important cultural tradition in the western world; it is one of the few cultural practices left after the harsh secularization attempts in the west. "

Just doesn't play a role in the Bible. You're defining it for what it is. A cultural traditional, socially constructed custom secularized with commercialism and materialism truth be told married to this idea about a toy maker/gift giver delivering presents all around the world in one night .

This is the problem. Everything just starts to homogenize and get conflated. Just like with Bible believers which are genuine practicioners mixed in with so called Christianity.

"but all denominations and people who believe in the Bible as it brings people to seek out God’s word, instates Christian values in the civilization, and creates an environment where people born in a particular place will have cultural pressure to investigate Christ without needing to go against the mainstream norm of secularism. "

I think you're saying here that a holiday brings people to the word of God. Totally non biblical as the Bible mentions nothing of practicing a holiday to seek or hear the word of God. According to the scriptures, God sends preachers to draw the faith of those that hear it .

"If Christmas were to stop being practiced by Bible believers,"

Apparently you're addressing a different group of folks. I'd appreciate us making a distinction here. Since I used the dual term first to introduce here, I kindly request in order to avoid confusion, separate the labels or acknowledge that Bible believers according to you are that in name sake that follow December 25th
celebration.

"Celebrating the birth of Christ seeks to honor Jesus through a special day of remembrance. This comes from a genuine desire to love him and engage in a celebration that the whole society can partake in."

Just not biblical. As a true Bible believer, that person would seek scripture to back all this up as they live according to the holy scriptures.

"Even people who would normally not classify themselves as religious can indulge in the festivities and celebration of Christmas, while the event itself works to normalize Christianity further into the culture to gain more followers. "

Of course because it's nothing to do with what the Word of God teaches. You can find atheists , etc. putting up trees talking about Santa Claus and caroling. No scripture for that. Here's where everything is blurred and you have something in there for everybody.

True Bible believers would just rid themselves of all the confusion.

"I agree, people should honor Jesus throughout their daily lives during all days. "

My stance is not on people as in general. It's Bible believers that should be.

Do you acknowledge by having a designated date disrupts what the scripture encourages?

"Plenty of people simply do not do so since they are either not very religious or simply do not believe in the Bible. "

Correct correct correct amen and amen. I'm not talking about them folks. It's not about just people. This is why I push so much on making a distinction to not conflate and confuse the subject.

Falsehood thrives off confusion.

"Not only does Christmas impact the culture to gain more followers to religions who seek to follow the Bible and people who seek the Bible alone, but it ensures that less apostasy will follow, meaning more people will identify with the Bible long enough to actually hear the message. Additionally, assuming everyone who believes in the Bible will be able to convince others to do so without these cultural events is unrealistic and simply shoots ourselves in the feet."

Is this your idea or is there biblical basis for this?

"Lastly, one can specify a special day to give reverence to something/someone while honoring them throughout the year. "

Ok. What's the point of designating a time for something that you do non-stop?

This is an attempt to have it both ways. It's paradoxical and cannot be done at the same time. It's one or the other.

"You may honor her, treat her very well, and go out of your way for her for every day of your life since you met her. However, her birthday is special; you plan out a particular celebration to ensure that she feels special and other people who would normally not give her the time of day can honor her as well."

You're going to have to be honest here and acknowledge that there is difference. That the same honor is not given day to day with the words "particular celebration". That's the point. There is no particular anything. Now what you do and others do is another matter.

"Celebrating that day doesn't suddenly make you not value or honor your wife the other 364 days of the year. "

Well this is getting into the subjective meanings between celebrating, honoring.

All I'm talking about is celebrating a specific day would be no different hence throwing away the concept of a "special" day or so called holiday. There'd be no difference period.

Clearly people can't do this 24/7 so anniversaries and holidays are invented.

"You simply make one particular day as a time of group celebration where others can participate and you put an extraordinary amount of effort into."

This is just getting further and further away from the topic let alone what's in scripture.

If you can't back up what you say with scripture, you have not proven that the Bible believers I'm talking about have a biblical basis from what you're saying.

"I believe that this a similar point to what I just refuted. A celebration once a year in the context of Christmas simply seeks to honor Jesus in the culture, assert the dominance of religions based on Christianity in the culture to gain more followers, and share the festivities during the time of Jesus. It works to fuse culture with religion to spread the influence of these beliefs. This is a net-good for Bible believers since this act seeks to spread the Gospel through the observance of cultural events which venerate Christ. "

This is not biblical. The point of this topic is what is biblical and you're shying away from that. It makes sense to do that if you have no refutation. The topic is not about the greater good, net good and or what is advantageous.

"Christmas assists the cultural dominance of Bible believers over other religions who seek to misguide the people.
- Christianity and Bible believers benefit from Christmas.
- Christmas allows more people to hear the Gospel and seek Christ.
- Therefore, Bible believers should celebrate Christmas."

Call book chapter and verse for all this just stated.




Con
#4
Rebuttals:

I believe that my opponent is missing the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is:
"Bible believers should not engage in or celebrate Christmas December 25th"

They go onto define Bible believers as:
Bible believers are the ones that practice and believe to what is taught as written, specifically as written according to the Bible.

Here is what we are arguing:
We are arguing that there is a particular advantage, compulsion, or reason for Bible believers to practice Christmas.
We are arguing whether it is better for them to practice Christmas compared to the alternative of not celebrating Christmas.

Here is what we are not arguing:
Christmas is 100% biblically justifiable.
All practices on Christmas can be found in scripture.


Note how my opponent keeps trying to claim that Christmas is not a Biblical practice and thus should not be practiced. This ignores the premise of the debate entirely. This is mostly due to the fact that there isn't a Bible verse stating that Bible believers should not practice Christmas. Since there isn't a verse explicitly banning the practice of Christmas, we can easily assert that practicing holidays with religious connotations such as Christmas is allowed by the Bible. Otherwise, we would need to forbid other acts that the Bible are silent on. For instance, do these so called Bible believers drive a car, know how a car works, or anything of the sort? Have they benefited from the inventions of cars? Well, cars are not found in the Bible. However, these are not forbidden to us simply because we understand the premise that things which are not spoken about does not equal God forbidding it without a reasonable equivocation to some other forbidden act. With my opponent's logic, they would like for you to believe that acts which fall under this category, such as cars and Christmas, should be considered forbidden to Bible believers because they are not explicitly brought up in the Bible, which is simply incorrect.


My opponent would need to come up with Biblical proof showing that the practice of Christmas should be forbidden to Bible believers. If they cannot do that, they must prove that there is a higher benefit not to indulge in Christmas compared to practicing the holiday. If my opponent cannot do either of these things, I win the debate automatically. 

Rebuttals from my Opponent's Arguments:

We have to be clear on everything and all these terms, every single one of them passed back and forth between us.

When does the celebration occur?

When speaking about Christmas in this context, I'm specifically referencing the celebration designated to the 25th of December.

By you moving it from that like moving the goal post, it's like admitting you have no refutation where the context has been established in this topic.
I am not moving the goal post. I have clearly demonstrated the link between Christ's birth and the date of December 25th. Additionally, I have already stated that the date of the celebration can be fluid to celebrate the rough date of his birth using Biblical estimates. 

This is not even the topic about it being advantageous. I want to steer this on the rails. Bible believers according to this topic should not engage in this December 25th celebration. Why ? Bible believers according to this topic only practice what's directed by scripture.
I have already dealt with a refutation along these lines in the first part of my rebuttal. We are arguing if Bible believers SHOULD practice Christmas. We have already established why Christmas can be celebrated as Bible believers still follow the Bible. Once again, just because the Bible does not explicitly say you can use cars does not mean that cars are forbidden to you. The holiday is meant for people who believe in the scripture to celebrate and honor the birth of Jesus. Banning that celebration to the detriment of the spread of the Gospel through a Bible dominated culture is certainly not Biblical.

But does the Bible teach to designate honor and celebration to a date?
Once again, I can easily turn the question back on you; does the Bible say not to engage in such a practice? If not, we cannot logically exclude it from allowable practices to Bible believers.

Just doesn't play a role in the Bible. You're defining it for what it is. A cultural traditional, socially constructed custom secularized with commercialism and materialism truth be told married to this idea about a toy maker/gift giver delivering presents all around the world in one night .
I have already outlined why it is beneficial to spread the Gospel and to allow for the cultural dominance of religions who believe in the Bible so that more people may find Christ. I did not say that consumerism needed to be rooted out from the holiday, nor that the idea of Santa is an inherently bad practice. I also did not claim that Santa was part of the religious practice of the holiday (outside of the Catholic faith). However, the meaning of the holiday is to honor Jesus; and that is the clear central mission. It is even in the name of the holiday.

I think you're saying here that a holiday brings people to the word of God. Totally non biblical as the Bible mentions nothing of practicing a holiday to seek or hear the word of God. According to the scriptures, God sends preachers to draw the faith of those that hear it .
Well, that is plain wrong. Bible believers in general are asked to spread the Bible. 

"7 Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God in order that he might confirm the promises given to the ancestors 9 and that the gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

“Therefore I will confess you among the gentiles
    and sing praises to your name”;

10 and again he says,

“Rejoice, O gentiles, with his people”;

11 and again,

“Praise the Lord, all you gentiles,
    and let all the peoples praise him”;

12 and again Isaiah says,

“The root of Jesse shall come,
    the one who rises to rule the gentiles;
in him the gentiles shall hope.”

13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." (1)

"Did the apostle Paul teach it was rebellion against God for anyone who was not 'ordained' or who did not first seek approval by church leaders (see Galatians 2:1 - 6) to preach the gospel? Writing from a prison cell, Paul told the church in Philippi the following.

And most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord, have been emboldened by my bonds to speak the Word more abundantly without fear . . .

What then shall I say? Nevertheless, in every way, whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed; and I rejoice in this, yes, and will also continue to rejoice (Philippians 1:14 - 15, 18).

Rather than Paul condemning brethren for preaching the gospel to the masses he praises their efforts!

God never intended his church to be divided into two distinct classes - those who had permission to serve, lead and preach the gospel (the clergy class) and all others whose primarily purpose is to 'pay, pray, stay and obey.'

Christians, by virtue of their calling, have been given permission to use whatever talents and spiritual gifts they possess (see 1Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4), to preach the gospel to anyone they can reach in the world!" (2)

Apparently you're addressing a different group of folks. I'd appreciate us making a distinction here. Since I used the dual term first to introduce here, I kindly request in order to avoid confusion, separate the labels or acknowledge that Bible believers according to you are that in name sake that follow December 25th
celebration.
No. Not only is this an arrogant assertion, but one that comes off as disrespect towards the topic itself.

Just not biblical. As a true Bible believer, that person would seek scripture to back all this up as they live according to the holy scriptures.
Once again, in different context, just because the Bible did not say for you to use computers or any type of electronics does not mean it is forbidden to you; neither is Christmas.

Of course because it's nothing to do with what the Word of God teaches. You can find atheists , etc. putting up trees talking about Santa Claus and caroling. No scripture for that. Here's where everything is blurred and you have something in there for everybody.
If anything, this adds to my point of Biblical/Christian dominance through these holidays. Even people who do not believe in the Bible and/or Christianity practice this holiday, and as such, are forced to confront a time of year, holiday, etc, with connections and connotations towards Christ simply because of said cultural dominance. I have already brought up how these same atheists wish for the destruction of Christmas due to the cultural dominance it brings towards the Bible. This has gone unrefuted. The point of cultural dominance leading people towards holy books and religion has also gone unrefuted.

True Bible believers would just rid themselves of all the confusion.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

Do you acknowledge by having a designated date disrupts what the scripture encourages?
No, I have already made the distinction between honoring something and/or someone every day yet reserving a special day to go all out for the individual; going to extraordinary heights that would normally not be possible. I find it quite ironic how you have been asking me for Bible verses this whole time, yet I would like to see one stating that Christmas in and of itself disrupts the celebration of scripture. Unfortunately, you will not find one.

Ok. What's the point of designating a time for something that you do non-stop?

This is an attempt to have it both ways. It's paradoxical and cannot be done at the same time. It's one or the other.
It is the practice of going all out, special activities that could not be done otherwise, etc, that are reserved for that special days. Actions such as giving workers off of work to practice Christmas cannot be given during the whole year. Special masses and other events to bring the community together in such large numbers cannot happen all year. There are many practices that cannot happen during all points in the year, or would simply be too unrealistic to expect of Bible believers to do. Look no further than the WW1 Christmas ceasefire for an example of this.

You're going to have to be honest here and acknowledge that there is difference. That the same honor is not given day to day with the words "particular celebration". That's the point. There is no particular anything. Now what you do and others do is another matter.
Once again, the level of arrogance in this statement alone, essentially suggesting that myself and other people who do not agree with their position simply do not worship Christ like they do without any type of Biblical backing to support their claim, is simply bad faith and shows feelings of superiority in this particular debater. 

I have already explained that one cannot go to the same extent on one day compared to every other day of the year; and one can still love/honor their thing/person just as much on a day other than the 24 hour period they choose to give specific reverence that they could not give otherwise. It is simply a focus of effort that can only happen in that short time frame to express the admiration, honor, and love they have during all other days of the year.

Well this is getting into the subjective meanings between celebrating, honoring.

All I'm talking about is celebrating a specific day would be no different hence throwing away the concept of a "special" day or so called holiday. There'd be no difference period.

Clearly people can't do this 24/7 so anniversaries and holidays are invented.
You heard it here first, folks! If you have a significant other and put extraordinary effort into his/her birthday, you simply aren't honoring and celebrating her the other 364 days. The love, care, and time you put in otherwise simply isn't equivocal. Sorry, guys! Hopefully she can be truly loved and honored next birthday. Perhaps this is not what they were suggesting. However, the wording is very confusing.

This is just getting further and further away from the topic let alone what's in scripture.

If you can't back up what you say with scripture, you have not proven that the Bible believers I'm talking about have a biblical basis from what you're saying.
I already did back up the need to spread the Gospel which makes Christmas useful with scripture. Once again, just because computers are not explicitly allowed in the Bible does not mean that they are forbidden to you, just like Christmas.

This is not biblical. The point of this topic is what is biblical and you're shying away from that. It makes sense to do that if you have no refutation. The topic is not about the greater good, net good and or what is advantageous.
I have already responded to this in so many similar refutations up to this point that I will not beat a dead horse.

UPDATES:
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for cultural dominance leading to more converts.
My opponent has not even touched the point of Christmas allowing for the spread of the Gospel.
My opponent has failed to refute the suggested Biblical date of Christmas.
My opponent has failed to prove that Christmas is forbidden for Bible believers.
My opponent has misinterpreted and misrepresented the topic of the debate.

And Overall...

My opponent has failed to show why Bible believers should not celebrate Christmas.

I extend all unaddressed arguments and put forth the refutations for further discussion.





Round 3
Pro
#5

"I believe that my opponent is missing the topic of the debate. "

I'm missing the topic of my own debate topic selection. What a deflection.

Let's see what you say the topic is .

"Bible believers should not engage in or celebrate Christmas December 25th"

"They go onto define Bible believers as:"

"Bible believers are the ones that practice and believe to what is taught as written, specifically as written according to the Bible. "

No problem here. The question is, are you like many others going to ignore this?

"We are arguing that there is a particular advantage, compulsion, or reason for Bible believers to practice Christmas."

No we are not arguing that. There's nothing in the debate description about me arguing an advantage of some sort. You're coming up with this.

We arguing according to the debate description that details what a believer is and what they live according to.

It appears you can't argue from that context so you've like many others, have conjured up your own context.

Believers I'm talking about go about living as it is written in scripture. So if these believers I'm referring to go about living as it according to scripture, your job was to find biblical basis for December 25th celebration which you have not.

Your job was to find biblical basis for December 25th celebration which you have not. You could not so you move the goal post.

Almost none of you can pick the ball up where it's at. You come in running with some other ball making up rules that go to another game play.

"We are arguing whether it is better for them to practice Christmas compared to the alternative of not celebrating Christmas."

You're totally coming up with this. You're going passed presupposition. You're concocting your own topic to refute.

Total misrepresentation.

"Here is what we are not arguing:
Christmas is 100% biblically justifiable.
All practices on Christmas can be found in scripture."

This is exactly what your burden was to prove. I believe you knew this going in deliberately evading it.

"Note how my opponent keeps trying to claim that Christmas is not a Biblical practice and thus should not be practiced."

I don't have to claim anything. Bible believers and the leaders that teach them will tell you it's not in the Bible.

I'm just simply reverberating that these kind of people exist. I believe you knew that this was the topic. You knew it was this cut and dry and you're making an ad hoc fallacy to get out of it.

"This ignores the premise of the debate entirely. "

It ignores your ad hoc premise. Rightfully so as it is invalid and fallacious.

"This is mostly due to the fact that there isn't a Bible verse stating that Bible believers should not practice Christmas. Since there isn't a verse explicitly banning the practice of Christmas, we can easily assert that practicing holidays with religious connotations such as Christmas is allowed by the Bible."

This is just like saying the Bible doesn't say I'm not allowed to kill Steve.

Completely false conclusion.
You have to be able to understand scripture as a whole line upon line.

Very weak argument on your part. You have to do better than that.

"For instance, do these so called Bible believers drive a car, know how a car works, or anything of the sort? Have they benefited from the inventions of cars? Well, cars are not found in the Bible. However, these are not forbidden to us simply because we understand the premise that things which are not spoken about does not equal God forbidding it without a reasonable equivocation to some other forbidden act. "

Let me help you out here. Clearly you've been misled and you're projecting for help to get on the correct path.

The scripture doesn't say Christmas is allowed. Therefore I can take the shallow biased weak position that it's not allowed . You can just do the opposite.

Both of these positions tend to fall apart from a lack of validity. I'm open-minded enough to see that deeply into them and can make stronger ironclad points.

This should have been recognized when the point was made about honoring the mother and father. More likely it was avoided trying to run from refutation.
We have to do more than just what your premise is proposing because it all contradicts and falls apart.

I can just have a negative position based on what the scripture is silent on while you do it on a positive position for the same reason.

All this would be in great conflict with one another.

Bible believers are in accordance with scripture when operating vehicles that in some way,form or fashion that amount to the glory of God.

We read in 1 Corinthians 10

"31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

Whatever it is, driving a car, using a computer, whatever has to be done where God is getting the glory. True Bible believers that live in accordance to the Bible are doing what is in the glory.

See it's extrapolating what the scripture does say and concluding from there the most direct conclusion there is that's relevant.

If the scripture detailed everything or all things and thoughts of God, there'd be no natural book for that.

"With my opponent's logic, they would like for you to believe that acts which fall under this category, such as cars and Christmas, should be considered forbidden to Bible believers because they are not explicitly brought up in the Bible, which is simply incorrect."

This is incorrect the way you understand. We can understand that the Bible strictly instructs on how to honor the Son which would bar Christmas.

Scripture encourages to honor the Son, period.

In John 5 it says "honour the Son". No where in there does it drop it down to a date just like with honor to the mother and father.

See I think you guys thought you had it all figured out. You thought I was using a weak argument fallacy , the argument of silence.

Ezekiel 22 does get into about saying what the Lord has not said. But it's not pure silence. It's one thing being said and a false prophet saying another.

It's the same thing with false Bible believers or people that have falsehood thinking it's of scripture.

"My opponent would need to come up with Biblical proof showing that the practice of Christmas should be forbidden to Bible believers. "

"In John 5 it says "honour the Son".
"In John 5 it says "honour the Son".
"In John 5 it says "honour the Son".

Recite it with me. Say it in your sleep. You find preachers that preach against the December 25th celebration will agree with this because they teach according to the scripture.

I don't think you properly responded to what was laid out in debate round 1.

When there is no refutation, the person acts like in an embarrassing fashion that they didn't hear what the other person said.

"Let's start here with something very basic such as a question.
Scripture says as it is written, honor thy mother and father, that's not the same as honoring off and on, is it?
It's not to honor one day and not another. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the same with this topic. A believer living according to scripture has to be very careful, following razor sharp specific to the text."

What do you think happens by preferably selecting a date?

Now if you want to argue the paradoxical argument that honor follows everyday, then you have negated what you were supposed to defend of having a specific or in other words special day called a holiday.

"In John 5 it says "honour the Son".

"If they cannot do that, they must prove that there is a higher benefit not to indulge in Christmas compared to practicing the holiday. If my opponent cannot do either of these things, I win the debate automatically. "

You've been refuted. The debate is over.

I'm glad I made this only 3 rounds because we've exhausted everything needed to be expressed. I'm just not a proponent of going in circles even though by this round, wheels were spinning in the mud.

So in summary , your position appears to be a compromise with scripture. I can't find any scripture nor have you provided any that there's something called a special honor or we have a special day for Christ . We don't even have scripture that tells us honoring the Son would mean creating a fairy tale of a man in a red suit with reindeer and toys.
The creation of this fairytale is simply materialism which is vain which the scripture touches on. We just search the scriptures line upon line. Right there, true Bible believers will separate any identity of Christmas based on the association of this fairytale which is a lie.
Scripture says to abstain from all appearances of evil. So even something that doesn't look right, separate. Come out from among them. No fellowship of light and darkness, not trying to serve two masters and compromising. In the world not of the world and it's materialism.

I don't think you have an answer to why a true believer would have an association with something linked to something that is further removed from scripture.

There is no special time for honor because the scripture just plainly and broadly states to honor. We can't tailor that up , add to it, take away from it and be honest at the same time. Adding to it by adding "special" , no. Taking away from it by saying the other days are less than because they're not "special", hence the one "special" day, no again.

I think I'll leave you with Proverbs 30

"6 Do not add to his words,

    or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

There's more I was intending to add but on low on space so that'll be put in the comments.

I'll put below what I can.

"I am not moving the goal post. I have clearly demonstrated the link between Christ's birth and the date of December 25th. Additionally, I have already stated that the date of the celebration can be fluid to celebrate the rough date of his birth using Biblical estimates. "

If you have no book chapter and verse for date of the birth, drop it. If you have no book chapter and verse for the date to honor the birth , drop it. Moot points again.

"We are arguing if Bible believers SHOULD practice Christmas. "

THEN STOP BRINGING UP THIS MESS ABOUT ARGUING THE ADVANTAGE(S) TO CELEBRATE SOMETHING.

"We have already established why Christmas can be celebrated as Bible believers still follow the Bible. Once again, just because the Bible does not explicitly say you can use cars does not mean that cars are forbidden to you. The holiday is meant for people who believe in the scripture to celebrate and honor the birth of Jesus. Banning that celebration to the detriment of the spread of the Gospel through a Bible dominated culture is certainly not Biblical."

CALL YOUR CHAPTER AND YOUR VERSE.

"But does the Bible teach to designate honor and celebration to a date?"

"Once again, I can easily turn the question back on you; does the Bible say not to engage in such a practice? If not, we cannot logically exclude it from allowable practices to Bible believers."

You see folks, look how that question was ducked. Yes or no. Does the Bible teach this ?....….......no but....

There is no but .

"However, the meaning of the holiday is to honor Jesus; and that is the clear central mission. It is even in the name of the holiday."

What does the Bible say about honoring Jesus Christ?
Recite it with me.

You have no bible for these holidays, coming up with holidays. The world, the nations come up with it along with the governments to legislate.

"I think you're saying here that a holiday brings people to the word of God. Totally non biblical as the Bible mentions nothing of practicing a holiday to seek or hear the word of God. According to the scriptures, God sends preachers to draw the faith of those that hear it ."

"Well, that is plain wrong. Bible believers in general are asked to spread the Bible."

It's wrong huh.
Oh if I had a reader , get me the book of Romans chapter 10 and at verse :

"15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

Unless you want to call the scripture wrong, take it back.
Preachers are sent so that believers go according to what is written.

"4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."

Living by the righteousness of the law that every one is a believer of .

"16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"

Those non believers not obeying the gospel with this Christmas stuff.

"17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Faith comes by hearing the Word preached. Which whom has been sent by the Lord God.

"15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

Ties into Isaiah 61:1

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;"
Are you calling all these books wrong?

Let God be true, every man a liar as the scripture say. Out of the mouth of two , three witnesses let every word be established.

I have Tertius , I believe as a witness written up the epistle of Romans.

I have Isaiah as a witness.

Let me get Luke as a third witness.

Luke 4:18.

"18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel"

You changed up from saying the holiday brings this to believers. Moving the post changing your words around, just hold steadfast to what you believe.

I didn't say anything about believers not being told to go in the world with the gospel. I just had to correct that error you made. There's no scripture on holidays bringing preachers. God brings and calls preachers.

That's why this topic, you can't deal with it as I challenge. You got to know the Bible a little bit.

"Did the apostle Paul teach it was rebellion against God for anyone who was not 'ordained' or who did not first seek approval by church leaders (see Galatians 2:1 - 6) to preach the gospel? Writing from a prison cell, Paul told the church in Philippi the following."

Quit moving the goal post really. You said a holiday brings people to the Word of God . There's no bible for that. You're doing it again where you can't back up the original context so you concoct an ad hoc one after the fact as sort of a red herring.

"No. Not only is this an arrogant assertion, but one that comes off as disrespect towards the topic itself."

No, you won't cooperate huh. You might as well consider yourself disqualified. You have no refutation anyway.

You can call it what you want. Maybe you just have huge difficulty in understanding what I'm saying.

The people that follow and live in holiness according to the written scriptures to the letter, I call them true Bible believers. I'm making a full distinction between every individual that also labels themselves under religion particularly just in name sake.

If that's disrespect, well no disrespect to you but that comes off kind of "political correctish" and liberal .


Scripture says " though I be rude in speech" , see it's not about avoiding having a sharp tongue as there's a point in the bigger picture to focus .


"Once again, in different context, just because the Bible did not say for you to use computers or any type of electronics does not mean it is forbidden to you; neither is Christmas."

CALL YOUR CHAPTER AND YOUR VERSE.

Your position that the Bible teaches to celebrate 25th of December , give Bible for it.

Let me say this here also. There's nothing new under the sun. You can come up with any example you can think of.

The Bible will have something to say on it directly or indirectly.

"If anything, this adds to my point of Biblical/Christian dominance through these holidays. Even people who do not believe in the Bible and/or Christianity practice this holiday, and as such, are forced to confront a time of year, holiday, etc, with connections and connotations towards Christ simply because of said cultural dominance. I have already brought up how these same atheists wish for the destruction of Christmas due to the cultural dominance it brings towards the Bible. This has gone unrefuted. The point of cultural dominance leading people towards holy books and religion has also gone unrefuted."

CALL YOUR CHAPTER AND YOUR VERSE.

"No True Scotsman fallacy."

That's another fallacy on your part yes. You're not telling the truth. You got no Bible saying to celebrate December 25th. Your logic is the argument of silence on the subject. In this case , biblical silence.

No that just won't do. Scripture says prove all things.

"Do you acknowledge by having a designated date disrupts what the scripture encourages?"

"No"

You're not acknowledging many things here including scripture.

" I have already made the distinction between honoring something and/or someone every day yet reserving a special day to go all out for the individual;"

This is double talk. Just like the devil with a forked tongue. What in the world is "going all out"? Do you have Bible for this " going all out " rhetoric?

Don't posit the world's junk here. Get down to scripture.

"I find it quite ironic how you have been asking me for Bible verses this whole time, yet I would like to see one stating that Christmas in and of itself disrupts the celebration of scripture. Unfortunately, you will not find one."

Oh let's recite this as we have a witness in John.

"In John 5 it says "honour the Son".

The true Bible believers can't specify a day out for doing this .

"Ok. What's the point of designating a time for something that you do non-stop?

This is an attempt to have it both ways. It's paradoxical and cannot be done at the same time. It's one or the other."

"It is the practice of going all out, special activities that could not be done otherwise, etc, that are reserved for that special days. Actions such as giving workers off of work to practice Christmas cannot be given during the whole year. Special masses and other events to bring the community together in such large numbers cannot happen all year. There are many practices that cannot happen during all points in the year, or would simply be too unrealistic to expect of Bible believers to do. Look no further than the WW1 Christmas ceasefire for an example of this."

Notice how the question was not answered. It went right over your head. Please don't gloss over it. Read it and actually answer what it is asking.

How can you designate a time for something that you are already doing non-stop?

Keyword there, pay attention, "non-stop".

If you're always doing it, there's no need to specify a time because you do it what? ALL THE TIME.

The true Bible believers pray without ceasing. They do all to the glory of God. ALL . Whatever they do in word or deed, they do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus. You can't establish a specified date out of any of this.

The Bible gives no room, no allowance to do that.

The Bible gives no specifications to a date , none to the type of practice you're looking to specify, it states nothing to this so called going all out, whatever that means, none of that. You can't even give a biblical interpretation of what that secular phrase "going all out " is suppose to mean.

Scripture just says in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus in the book of Colossians if I'm correct.

Scripture says to honor the Son. Now this dividing things up with activities I suspect is a guise to have it both ways.

Since you're stuck on activities, let's look at some scripture to knock out any loopholes you have in mind.

What comes to mind is "learn not the way of the heathen".

The book Jeremiah chapter 10 and we start at verse 1
"1 Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:"

Every true Bible believer that follows the word is a hearer and doer of it. The scripture just reiterates this language.

"2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them."

So we're talking about what heathens do. Non bible believers that also can be known as so called Christians.

"3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe."

Now in this debate there has been mentioning of the customs and cultures. Now we have the book talking about it. You're not to be embracing the giving of honor to the Son because of some custom.

"4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

Is this what you have in mind?

Mr. "Going all out", Ms. "Going all out".

You'll find yourself going all out of the kingdom less you come out from among them.

"5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good."

These things are vain, they're no good.

So the Bible can make a distinction about pure materialism and actual fruitful righteousness.
But to drive it back to the main point.
The Bible directly says to honor the Son.
If you personally want to be creative and arrange an itinerary of a schedule of different things for different dates you think would honor the Son, it makes no difference, it makes nothing special because there is no "special honor". When there's no special honor, you negate a special date. You can do different things each day you think, keywords "you think" are celebrating and honoring the Son, but there is no time set aside to honor as it's ongoing. This would in turn throw out time set aside that the world calls a holiday.

These different deeds that are done outside of Jeremiah 10, these will have to be led by the Spirit which follows the will of God.
But whatsoever is done, it's done in the name of the Lord Jesus. It's not done specially at this time or that time in the name or more or less in the name. It's purely done in that name.
Scripture purely says all that honor the Son. There is no Bible for a special date, special honor or a day to one-up it. Trying to slip that in there, you're trying to still have your cake and eat it too.
Just think, honor your mother. You can't give a higher honor or special honor one day and not another. It's all across the board, one level universal honor.
That negates wishing a happy this , a merry that for one day and not another. Each day or at all times carry just as any other .
I hope this really reshapes your perspective to the realization that the essence here is not disbursed in levels of a spectrum. That's what a holiday, a special day , December 25th is established for.

Whether I have off from working at a job or not, honor the Son. Whatsoever you do, work or no work, whatsoever you do, do all in the name. We didn't get any dates from scripture to chop that up.
It's just across the board, point blank period.

"Once again, the level of arrogance in this statement alone, essentially suggesting that myself and other people who do not agree with their position simply do not worship Christ like they do without any type of Biblical backing to support their claim, is simply bad faith and shows feelings of superiority in this particular debater. "

In other words, no refutation for the statement.

"I have already explained that one cannot go to the same extent on one day compared to every other day of the year; and one can still love/honor their thing/person just as much on a day other than the 24 hour period they choose to give specific reverence that they could not give otherwise. It is simply a focus of effort that can only happen in that short time frame to express the admiration, honor, and love they have during all other days of the year."
Your thoughts ok. Give me Bible for all this because I have Bible that says honor the Son. Honor the mother and father . I believe it says honor your presidents, government. Now if you want to argue and say that can't be done and it's got to be chopped up with some dates on and off and on and off again, your changing the truth of God for a lie. Like those with hard hearts that just reject the message.
You're adding a lot more into this than the pure words of scripture. 




Con
#6
Preface to Closing Arguments:
This has to have been the weirdest debate since the one I did on abortion back on DDO. I am thoroughly confident that I would not even need to write a closing argument in order to win the debate. My core arguments, especially the secular ones, have largely run uncontested. To recap:

Culture promotes the adherence of religion and promotes the Gospel to be spread -----> Christmas influences the culture more towards Bible believers -----> This allows for more converts to the Bible and protection of the already existing Bible believers --------> Christmas is, therefore, a net good for Bible believers to participate and engage in to uphold this dominance -------> Therefore, Christmas should be engaged in/celebrated by Bible believers.

This argument was largely untouched throughout the debate. Due to the uncontested nature of this argument, I have automatically won the debate. This is due to the nature of the topic which my opponent has oddly misunderstood. The one line of defense my opponent had to this line of reasoning was that it is not our place to spread the Gospel. which I have refuted in my previous argument. Even if that was the case, it does not negate the advantage to people who already believe in the Bible. To review the topic in full:

Bible believers should not engage in or celebrate Christmas December 25th
Bible believers were defined as:
Bible believers are the ones that practice and believe to what is taught as written, specifically as written according to the Bible.
Christmas was defined as:
The observation, festive engagement, interaction socially, politically attaching the 25th of December.

Once again, the topic was not on the Biblical veracity of Christmas; the debate was touching on the notion of whether Bible believers themselves should celebrate Christmas. The only way for my opponent to have won the debate was to prove one of two points.

They had to prove that either:
Christmas goes against the Bible in some way.
It is less advantageous for Bible believers to practice Christmas.

The other route this debate could have gone towards was arguing whether Christmas itself should be celebrated on December 25th in particular. This line of argumentation would have served to open up another front into the debate which could have made my opponent's argument stronger. Instead, they chose to cling to argumentation that special celebrations that can only be done once in a segment of time is the same as ones ability to honor Jesus every day; almost ignoring my point of equating Christmas to a birthday. For all intensive purposes, that's what Christmas is supposed to represent. This led to a debate which seemed like my opponent was arguing a different topic. This leads to the biblical argument I made which became less contested as the debate went on.


Jesus was born on December 25th ------> We have Biblical proof to believe he was born on that date -------> People choosing to celebrate that day for his birthday are justified according to the Bible ------> Therefore, Bible believers can and should celebrate Christmas to further honor Christ even more than they normally could.

Although this argumentation was more contested compared to the former, the main rebuking statements towards this line of logic was that one should argue Jesus everyday, so why designate a special day? I stated that I agreed that one should honor Jesus everyday. However, holding a special day to celebrate the momentous occasion of his birth that cannot be done everyday, like a birthday, should be done in addition to the honoring one already does throughout year. 

After this, my opponent became visibly upset; demanding Bible verses to justify the practice directly and throwing arrogant insults my way. After I explained the equivalency between the Bible not forbidding it and not forbidding modern technology, my opponent preceded to straw-man my case and throw more insults my way. Lastly, my opponent tried to violate the rules of their own debate by writing additional arguments in the comment section of the debate. Not only is this a flippant and arrogant dismissal of their own rules for their debate, but I feel so appalled by this action that I will post the one thing that did not copy to my original argument due to a technical glitch in this argument so that the gravity of the situation will be seen; my sources for round one, which were never even questioned to begin with. 


Sources:


Due to this, I have no duty to respond to their arguments in the comments, and they can be considered null-in-void. With all of these infractions, I have won the conduct portion of this debate as well.  Throughout the debate, my opponent did not format her quotations at all. My arguments have been formatted properly and contain limited, if any, grammatical errors. This means that I win the legibility portion of the debate.

This debate seems to have shown my opponent's desire for superiority (using all of the statements meant to insult people who practice Christmas as not true Bible believers) and their own dislike of Christmas rather than focusing on the Bible and the benefits Christmas gives to people of the faith. I humbly ask for you to vote Con at this point if you are already satisfied and in agreement with my arguments. If their refutations have made you hesitant, I will now go through my final refutations for this debate.

Rebuttals:

"I believe that my opponent is missing the topic of the debate. "

I'm missing the topic of my own debate topic selection. What a deflection...

(I am shortening the quotes due to the character limit. The quoted section represents the beginning of the statement I am refuting).
Just like my opponent has seemed to misunderstand their own rules in regards to word limit as they went to the comments to continue their argument against me, my opponent has indeed misunderstood the topic of the debate. Once again, the topic concerns whether Bible believers SHOULD practice or engage in Christmas. This means that it is a debate on whether it is allowed for them to do so, and whether there is a particular advantage to them engaging in the practice. I have proved both of these statements to my side of the debate. 


Believers I'm talking about go about living as it is written in scripture. So if these believers I'm referring to go about living as it according to scripture, your job was to find biblical basis for December 25th celebration which you have not.
I have found a Biblical basis for the date of December 25th being Jesus's birth. It is purely up to the believers what they wish to do with that information. It just so happens that Bible believers wish to celebrate it and make it into a cultural hallmark to show the dominance of their religion. This is not forbidden, nor is there any similar celebrations forbidden in the Bible to where we could potentially extrapolate a rule against Christmas. Therefore, Christmas is allowed to be practiced and has a Biblical basis.


"We are arguing whether it is better for them to practice Christmas compared to the alternative of not celebrating Christmas."

You're totally coming up with this. You're going passed presupposition. You're concocting your own topic to refute.

Total misrepresentation.
We have already addressed why my opponent has misunderstood the topic of their own debate. 

"Here is what we are not arguing:
Christmas is 100% biblically justifiable.
All practices on Christmas can be found in scripture."

This is exactly what your burden was to prove. I believe you knew this going in deliberately evading it.
Notice how my opponent tries to caricature their own topic for the debate since they understood the disadvantage they are currently in. The topic is not even close to "Everything found in Christmas is 100% found in the Bible" or even "Christmas has a Biblical Basis". My opponent hopes to convince you against their own topic since there isn't a refutation to my points that they have brought forward. They can only hope to misrepresent the topic and pray you take their word for it. Luckily, I have reminded the voters of the actual topic of this debate.

"Note how my opponent keeps trying to claim that Christmas is not a Biblical practice and thus should not be practiced."
(I will not shorten quotes due to character limit. Any quote concerns the content of their argument until they choose the next quote to attempt to refute me.)
My opponent is accusing me of committing a logical fallacy which I have not made. Ad hoc fallacy concerns this:
Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged.

As such, it’s an attempt to protect one’s claim from any potential refutations and thus preserve their existing beliefs. Furthermore, the explanation is specifically constructed to be used in a particular case and is created hastily at the moment rather than being the result of deliberate, fact-based reasoning. (1)
Not only is there no reason to assert that I have made such a fallacy, as my position has not wavered since the beginning of the debate, but they once again try to mislead voters using misrepresentations to further try to smear my case. This should further speak against their conduct in this debate.

"This is mostly due to the fact that there isn't a Bible verse stating that Bible believers should not practice Christmas. Since there isn't a verse explicitly banning the practice of Christmas, we can easily assert that practicing holidays with religious connotations such as Christmas is allowed by the Bible."

This is just like saying the Bible doesn't say I'm not allowed to kill Steve...
This is a straw-man, particularly because you ignore the context of my argument. You bring it up in the next quote to attempt misdirection with the voters. The necessary context is:

"However, these are not forbidden to us simply because we understand the premise that things which are not spoken about does not equal God forbidding it without a reasonable equivocation to some other forbidden act. "

In other words, one cannot assume they are able to kill Steve, in your example, because we know that murder is a sin in the Bible. Since the act of killing Steve without any context can be directly comparable to a rule in the Bible, we can safely assume that we are not allowed to kill Steve. The same cannot be said for Christmas, which is why you've conveniently left the context out of your rebuttal.

Let me help you out here. Clearly you've been misled and you're projecting for help to get on the correct path...
Here, my opponent tries to claim the opposite of my stance; that individuals are not allowed Christmas due to it not being stated in the Bible. However, this violates the logical principle I stated earlier. If that is the case, Christians would not be able to operate cars or various other forms of technology developed after the Bible was written. They then attempt to claim this as their premise:

Bible believers are in accordance with scripture when operating vehicles that in some way,form or fashion that amount to the glory of God.

We read in 1 Corinthians 10

"31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
If this is their premise, they have already conceded their position; we seek to glorify and honor God through Christmas; that's the whole point, to celebrate the birth of Christ. My opponent claims that it's null-in-void since one should honor Christ everyday. We agree that one should honor Christ everyday. However, as stated before, the point of Christmas is not just to use one day to honor Christ and forget about him the rest of the year; it is specifically to honor his birth and put as much effort into doing so as we can. This example is seen through many relationships and holidays, such as birthdays, mother's day, father's day, etc. We do not forget our loved ones every other day except for these particular dates; we simply put extra effort into making them feel honored, glorified, and loved that we could not do on the other days due to a number of factors. It seems my opponent either seeks to straw-man the whole holiday of Christmas, or simply does not understand the premise of it.

This is incorrect the way you understand. We can understand that the Bible strictly instructs on how to honor the Son which would bar Christmas...
Once again, one can always honor the son, yet have a date where they put even more effort into doing so than normal. This has been the premise for many celebrations and holidays throughout history and religious traditions; from the Jews to the Biblical sects to the Muslims. Notice how my opponent cites a verse that does not bar celebrations to honor God, Jesus, or any other Biblical figure for a special time on top of regular worship; they cite a verse stating one should honor the son and claims it as the ultimate refutation to my case. This should show you how my opponent has to resort to misrepresentation of both my own arguments and scripture in order to have even a chance of winning the debate. Do not be deceived, voters! My opponent has not offered any Biblical proof against Christmas or any holiday like it.

Recite it with me. Say it in your sleep. You find preachers that preach against the December 25th celebration will agree with this because they teach according to the scripture.
Vague appeals to authority. Let me show you preachers who support Christmas from Catholicism (2) to Lutherans, Mozarabic, Presbyterians (3), and even Orthodox (although on a different date) (4). It may be unwise to use an appeal to authority here.

So in summary , your position appears to be a compromise with scripture. I can't find any scripture nor have you provided any that there's something called a special honor or we have a special day for Christ . We don't even have scripture that tells us honoring the Son would mean creating a fairy tale of a man in a red suit with reindeer and toys...
Once again, I did not claim that Santa nor any materialist elements are Biblical. I claimed they were part of the cultural practice of Christmas. They do not conflate with the religion and are not falsely attributed to be Biblical or of the book by people who practice it. My position is perfectly Biblical, as I have proved the date of the birth of Christ likely falls on December 25th. People can celebrate that day as they may, but they do so to honor and glorify God, which to your earlier verse, should make it line up perfectly with the Bible.

Oh if I had a reader , get me the book of Romans chapter 10 and at verse :
The last argument she has that I can respond to due to the character limit are whether people besides preachers can preach the Gospel. First, people can bring others to the Gospel, regardless of your stance on people being able to preach the Word. This means that this does not violate the premise of Christmas. They are also allowed to spread the Gospel, as I have quoted in my previous argument. (5) Unfortunately, I cannot write more about this due to the character limit, so I will point to a source which explains why it is the duty of all Christians to spread the word of God. (7)

You are the light of the world...  let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:14-16

Works meaning apologetics, it is our duty to bring people to the Lord. Romans 10 is your main point for why preachers are needed in specific to preach the Gospel. However, you once again misrepresent scripture as that verse was explaining why Paul HIMSELF had to continue to preach. 

"Now Paul continues with the next logical question: How will anyone preach the gospel of Jesus unless they are sent by someone to do so? Paul's question shows that preaching is not the first step in the chain that leads to faith in Christ and calling on His name. Instead, sending is that first step.

Who does the sending? In the case of Paul and the other apostles who had been preaching the gospel around the world, it was Christ Himself who had sent them out. They had been commissioned by Jesus to preach the good news to the world (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 9:15)." (8)
Who is sent in the modern sense? Well, following the logic of the verse with how Jesus sent the apostles to enlighten people to the Word, it is now our duty to enlighten those who have not heard or given the Word proper thought. We must enlighten people to the glory of Christ, as the earlier quote denotes:


"...how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?"

Using this logic, holidays such as Christmas can enlighten people to the Gospel, and even by your own logic, many preachers and priests endorse Christmas and use it to spread the word of God through prayers and direct statements (2, 3, 4). Either way you slice it, my position is correct.

Jeremiah Chapter 10 with the verses you quoted is about the worshipping of idols which Christians do not do during Christmas. Hence, 
This chapter shows that there is no comparison to be made between God and the idols of the Gentiles; represents the destruction of the Jews as near at hand; and is closed with some petitions of the prophet. It begins by way of preface with an exhortation to hear the word of the Lord, and a dehortation not to learn the way of the Heathens, or be dismayed at their signs, since their customs were in vain, Jer 10:1-3 which lead on to expose their idols, and set forth the greatness and glory of God. (6)
Notice once again, the dishonesty of my opponent. They take a verse about idols and honoring false gods to equivocate it to Christmas. This is how you know the desperation of my opponent's case, dear voters.

We then get more of the same, claiming one cannot honor someone/something all the days yet reserve a special day to put special effort into something which is utterly untrue with readily seen examples such as birthdays and the like which I have already argued above. This debate has been over since my second round response to the arguments of my opponent.

Hopefully, you agree that I have:

Shown why the secular argument for Bible believers celebrating Christmas has been upheld.
Shown the biblical basis for the date of Christmas and refuted any notion of the practice being forbidden.
Shown the case for cultural dominance of Bible believers to celebrate and engage with Christmas.
Shown the case for veneration of why Bible believers should celebrate Christmas. 
Refuted my opponents claims and rebuttals.
Accurately portrayed the topic of the debate and removed the confusion my opponent tried to sow.

God Bless, I rest my case! 

VOTE CON!

Sources: