Instigator / Pro
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#5133

It is not wrong to tell children and or my children that Santa Claus is not real.

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
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.

In honor to your interest.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you very much.

So because I do not condone dishonesty, I do not present lies, perpetuate lies nor give the impression of faulty truth, half truth or any thing that obviously maintains deception.

I do not look to institute another to be deceived deliberately. By fault or error is another case exceptional...

In terms of being facetious when the other party can understand or has a read on it is another exceptional circumstance.

Other than that, I do not support feeding falsehood, non truth to anybody. To anybody that is.

Also I'll add this. The teachings of religion or beliefs therein do not equate.

I know that Christmas is a hodgepodge of religious elements and commercialism that just makes a wreck of these themes.

Mixing worldly secular customs is just a non sequitur and an oxymoron.

Now my children are my children and I can instill any values in them I wish that will certainly have them to be law abiding citizens such as honesty.

It is not wrong to tell anyone something is not true because it is correct. For it to be correct to say something is true when it is not is a contradiction which would perpetuate the dishonesty.

I don't really have to extend this out on and on. Simple, direct and straightforward.

Only sensible argument someone can try to make against me is that it is no harm.

Ok I'll entertain it.

No harm in what?

Con
#2
First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers. And that I'm honored and humbled by this invitation for a debate.


- Not for the sake of argument -
Even though this was supposed to be another debate of this, I'm okay with the change of topic.

I would also like to say I don't know a single thing about Christianity or Western culture. But I do know that Santa Clause is real and exists but I don't intend on proving that since it's not the point of the debate.

I also must praise my friend’s always honesty, never lie policy. It's a sign of great personality to tell what you understand or believe and not what you don't understand or believe under any circumstance. Which can't be seen much in this misconducting society.

And “By fault or error is another case” is alright. It's the intention that counts.

Also “... against me is that it is no harm.”, of course there's great harm using false, harsh, separating, unnecessary, useless, and forgetful words, hurting life physically or mentally, marriage or thought of misconduct with protected people. Even the thought brings great harm, never even think like that my friend.


- Argument -
P1: My friend’s position is “It is not wrong to tell children and or my children that Santa Claus is not real.” (S1).

C1: Therefore my friend is making the claim that “Santa Claus is not real”.


P2: If my friend is making the claim then the burden of proof will be with my friend (C1).

P3: And if my friend fails to prove that point, my friend would be “containing untrue statements” or lying (S2).

C2: And if my friend doesn't like someone lying to my friend, then I don't think my friend would like to lie to the children either (S3).


P4: If I negate “not wrong” in my friend’s position, the statement becomes “It is right to tell children and or my children that Santa Claus is not real.” (S1).

P5: Therefore, unless my friend can prove “Santa Claus is not real” or that this logic is deductively unsound, my friend’s position will become false (C2).

C3: Therefore, I will wait until my friend’s argument.


I thank my friend's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"Also “... against me is that it is no harm.”, of course there's great harm using false, harsh, separating, unnecessary, useless, and forgetful words, hurting life physically or mentally, marriage or thought of misconduct with protected people. Even the thought brings great harm, never even think like that my friend."

What I'm thinking is what others do that celebrate Christmas with this Santa Claus falsehood. They're the ones that think there's no harm. Are you understanding what I'm saying now?

"C1: Therefore my friend is making the claim that “Santa Claus is not real”."

A claim to a fact. Do you wish to know what evidence there is to disprove the existence of Santa Claus?

"P2: If my friend is making the claim then the burden of proof will be with my friend (C1)."

I'll nip this in the bud before you even answer the question. You haven't proven Santa Claus is real but I'm not going to burden you with the burden of substantiating your statement of Santa being real and existing. If you meant just existing as a fictitious figure , I get it.

What disproves Santa Claus?

Well what is Santa Claus?

The Santa Claus I'm referring to is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children .

I can tell my children that I have bought the gifts that have been given to them thus disproving Santa Claus has done so, thus telling the truth which is not a wrongdoing. 

So that's really the debate in a nutshell. If the opposing side can actually come up with a rebuttal for that summarized standpoint, let them bring it forth.

Bring it forth comrade.

"P3: And if my friend fails to prove that point, my friend would be “containing untrue statements” or lying (S2)."

It's no debate on Santa Claus existing. The one I'm talking about. This doesn't equate to the "God existing" debate. So when you say "fails to prove", it's already proven worldwide without me even saying anything. Any part of the world including so called Christianity or Western culture. Everyone in their right genuine mind that is mature enough to be aware knows Santa Claus is a fairytale just like humpty Dumpty, the three little pigs made up for storytime for children.

There's no debate on the existence of Santa Claus. I hope you're not being disingenuous here. That's really not the way to go.

"P5: Therefore, unless my friend can prove “Santa Claus is not real” or that this logic is deductively unsound, my friend’s position will become false (C2).

C3: Therefore, I will wait until my friend’s argument."

Well I rest my case. Back over to you.

Con
#4
First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.


- Not for the sake of argument -
1. Really sorry I made a mistake, “using false, harsh, … with protected people.” should be,

hurting life physically or mentally, taking what's not given, marriage or thought of misconduct with protected people, using false, harsh, separating, unnecessary, useless, and forgetful words, thought of taking something from others, there's no results for actions, no this world, afterlife, parents, spontaneous life, and people who understood by themselves this and afterlife worlds, liberation from suffering, and great wisdom and knowledge of reality.

“What I'm thinking is what others do that celebrate Christmas with this Santa Claus falsehood. They're the ones that think there's no harm. Are you understanding what I'm saying now?”
2. Yes my friend, if anyone is acting upon falsehood, not only are they going to harm themselves but on others as well. However since we're on a quest to find Christmas as true as a holiday and Santa Claus as real as a person. I suggest that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's false until the matter at hand gets solved my friend.

3. At this point I would like to apologize on behalf of me and my friend to everyone for taking this debate off topic. As long as we learn something it's worth it.


- Argument -
“Do you wish to know what evidence there is to disprove the existence of Santa Claus?”
P6: Definitely my friend, but I'm sure that the word “Santa Claus” exists since my friend already used it (“Do you … Santa Claus?”).

“The Santa Claus I'm referring to is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children .”
P7: What have you done my friend! You've proven the existence of Santa Claus. What would become of this debate (“The Santa Claus … for children .”).

“I can tell my children that I have bought the gifts that have been given to them thus disproving Santa Claus has done so, thus telling the truth which is not a wrongdoing.”
P8: Correct, but may I ask why if it's not too much trouble? Since gifts are supposed to be “without compensation” but trying to get credit makes it seem like you expected something in return (“I can tell … wrongdoing.”).

“If the opposing side can actually come up with a rebuttal for that summarized standpoint, let them bring it forth.”

“Bring it forth comrade.”
P9: Really sorry my friend, it seems everything's already rebutted (“If the opposing ... bring it forth.”, “Bring it forth comrade.”).

“It's no debate on Santa Claus existing. The one I'm talking about. This doesn't equate to the "God existing" debate.”
P10: Correct my friend (“It's no … "God existing" debate.”).

“So when you say "fails to prove", it's already proven worldwide without me even saying anything.”
P11: I don't know worldwide my friend, all I'm interested in is you (“So when … saying anything.”).

“Everyone in their right genuine mind that is mature enough to be aware knows Santa Claus is a fairytale just like humpty Dumpty, the three little pigs made up for storytime for children.”
P12: Please my friend, don't contradict your own words. Santa Claus “is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children” (“Everyone in … for children.”).

“There's no debate on the existence of Santa Claus. I hope you're not being disingenuous here. That's really not the way to go.”
P13: Correct my friend (“There's no debate … to go.”).

P14: Thank you my friend (“Well I rest my case. Back over to you.”).

C4: I hope my friend was able to prove the existence of Santa Claus as per P7. I will wait until my friend’s argument.


I thank my friend's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Round 3
Pro
#5
" However since we're on a quest to find Christmas as true as a holiday and Santa Claus as real as a person. I suggest that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's false until the matter at hand gets solved my friend."

I don't know what that means"true holiday ". Maybe you can unpack what you mean. I know the holiday exists. So that's true about Christmas, it exists. It's true it's on the 25th of December. Not up for debate.

Do you sincerely believe that it's a possibility that Santa Claus is not a fabricated fairytale?

Otherwise it's an established fact like little red riding hood, humpty Dumpty, Jack and the magic bean stalk, Pinocchio, snow white, frosty, Rudolph, etc., etc., these are crafted fables.

My position is it is not wrong to say that they are fabrications when they are. If it is wrong, you're virtually saying telling the truth is wrong. Telling lies is right .

"Definitely my friend, but I'm sure that the word “Santa Claus” exists since my friend already used it (“Do you … Santa Claus?”)."

I said disprove the existence of Santa Claus, not the existence of the name. Let us not get that confused.
The name refers to whatever that name is referring to so the starting point would be to define whatever it is being referred to so we ask this question.

Who or what is Santa Claus?

This is just like another topic I had for example about proving God existing. A faulty argument to make would be proving the name exists. That's not proving God exists because God has a meaning or definition. In order to know God's existence is being proven, you have to know what the existence of God would mean in order to identify it and the evidence thereof that would be attached to it.

"What have you done my friend! You've proven the existence of Santa Claus. What would become of this debate (“The Santa Claus … for children .”)."

Oh so you're going to use the faulty logic because a name or word exists , the entity or figure itself exists.

If we go by that , we can say a voiceless voice exists because the words exist. We can say quiet noises exists from the same faulty logic and be wrong because we're being dishonest on top of that .

Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real) absolutely period, because they were written down on paper according to that faulty reasoning. Yet the writers and directors will tell you that said things never happened, they never existed.

They're not going to argue that figments of imaginations are not real . Why ? It wouldn't be a lie. It be truthful to say these are figments of imagination.

Just like it's truthful to say Santa Claus is the same which you're supposed to be arguing that it is wrong to say that about the character Santa Claus which is an imagined depiction.

Instead of wasting your opportunity of that on debating the actual existence of Santa Claus or not, where are you rebuttals for me saying it's wrong to not tell when something was fabricated when it really was?

I hope you're not going to copout and be disingenuous just to so called win a debate.

"Correct, but may I ask why if it's not too much trouble? Since gifts are supposed to be “without compensation” but trying to get credit makes it seem like you expected something in return (“I can tell … wrongdoing.”)."

It's not about trying to get credit it's about being dishonest about it. What do you not understand about telling the truth? The truth is in the category of correct. Saying something as though it was true giving that impression when it is not is dishonest.

Works the same way in criminal justice. For people not to be falsely convicted, you have to credit the correct people that actually committed the crime. Putting the credit of the crime on the innocent is incorrect and injustice .

"Really sorry my friend, it seems everything's already rebutted (“If the opposing ... bring it forth.”, “Bring it forth comrade.”)."

Everything is rebutted, that is of what you tried to argue.

"Correct my friend (“It's no … "God existing" debate.”)"

Then I should see no more rhetoric from you about the fairy tale of Santa Claus disproving it. We know Santa Claus is false. Saying that fairytales are real is an oxymoron and contradiction.

" I don't know worldwide my friend, all I'm interested in is you (“So when … saying anything.”)."

Well I'm going to point you worldwide. So your interest in me leads to a worldwide established fact. So either way your interest will include that one way or the other.

"Please my friend, don't contradict your own words. Santa Claus “is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children” (“Everyone in … for children.”)."

Let me get this straight. So because I use the language "a figure or person ", means it's a real entity but just not one that gives presents, is that your point?

It's a moot one. It's no different from watching a movie or reading a book. I see you reading a Spiderman comic book or watching a Spiderman movie. I ask who is that other individual fighting spiderman. You say "oh THAT PERSON IS the bad guy or IS a villain".

You don't necessarily have to use the word "fictitious" because it's redundant. We already know the context . The context is fictitious or false so we're simply describing something within that understood context. 

Just like the context has been indicated here going back to the first round. I speak on falsehood and telling the truth.

"Other than that, I do not support feeding falsehood, non truth to anybody. To anybody that is."

The context of the topic is on or about what is fiction and falsehood.

Then I expand in round 2 expounding upon that.

"What I'm thinking is what others do that celebrate Christmas with this Santa Claus falsehood."

Keywords : Santa Claus falsehood

So we're starting off indicating we'll be talking about a fabrication, work of fiction, a fairytale.


" I hope my friend was able to prove the existence of Santa Claus as per P7. I will wait until my friend’s argument."

I think you're confused on the topic. You already agree or have not denied that it's wrong to deal in falsehoods not telling the truth.

That's the topic. 

"Yes my friend, if anyone is acting upon falsehood, not only are they going to harm themselves but on others as well."

The harm you're mentioning here is in the category of wrong that I'm talking about.

So as far as the debate goes, you're already in agreement. The existence of Santa Claus is not up for debate. If you want that , you can message me on that even though it's non controversial .

Con
#6
First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.


- Not for the sake of argument -
“Do you sincerely believe that it's a possibility that Santa Claus is not a fabricated fairytale?”
1. My friend, I heard stories about some people named Albert Einstein, Chakravartin Ashoka, King Arthur, etc. But how am I to know whether they're real or not? I never saw them with plain eyes, all I got was words and pictures from the internet and voices from other people. This is why we hold to the maxim “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.”.

If you ask two different people who is Santa independently they would give two different answers or at least their thoughts about him will be different. You see my friend, the world around us is created by our mind, simple thoughts occured by contact with some signals (images, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts). Therefore in our culture, we don't accept anything since all of them are just thoughts.

“Otherwise it's an established fact like little red riding hood, humpty Dumpty, Jack and the magic bean stalk, Pinocchio, snow white, frosty, Rudolph, etc., etc., these are crafted fables.”
2. Ever notice how they correspond to humans or some other animal? It's that we can't completely imagine things, only can alternate (mix) things in mind with others (human + egg -> Humpty Dumpty). So Santa Claus will be the same, probably some alteration of Saint Nicholas with time.

3. This debate is moving toward some interesting places which I thank my friend for. If anyone can understand this debate they can understand everything.

4. And I would like to sincerely request my friend to reduce our argument lengths since we really have to consider other readers no?

For example “If it is wrong, you're virtually saying telling the truth is wrong. Telling lies is right .”, I think we all already agree that lying is logically unsound. And so, no need to repeat I think.

Also a bit of formatting won't hurt like indenting quotes my friend. Some outside sources perhaps. Or I think we both could get reprimanded, my friend.


- Argument -
“I don't know what that means"true holiday ". Maybe you can unpack what you mean. I know the holiday exists. So that's true about Christmas, it exists. It's true it's on the 25th of December. Not up for debate.”
P15: Holidays and people are all agreed standard amongst men, for example the birth happened in one moment of time, but in different countries we celebrate at different times (America celebrates it after 12 hours difference from Asia). If we're in a different solar system where the number of days in a year is different, we'll celebrate it at a different period of time altogether.

You see, as long as we agree, it seems real, which is an illusion. Same goes for Santa Claus. Our ancestors agreed on a person but our generation doesn't know about that person. So here we're debating about it. All agreed things change with time. Only reality stays the same with time. This is what I meant (“unpack what you mean”).

“Do you sincerely believe that it's a possibility that Santa Claus is not a fabricated fairytale?

Otherwise it's an established fact like little red riding hood, humpty Dumpty, Jack and the magic bean stalk, Pinocchio, snow white, frosty, Rudolph, etc., etc., these are crafted fables.”
P16: It's true as any other person I've heard in life, my friend (“Do you sincerely believe“).

P17: Never even think about that my friend. This whole mess (entangled string) happened due to the inability to separate fact from fiction.

As I already mentioned, never even mention unnatural things, events, words, etc. Since you will begin to feed the world with lies.

For example, I never even knew Rudolph but since you mentioned it now I will know of it and that exists (“telling the truth is wrong. Telling lies is right .”).

P18: Correct, but the burden of proof is all yours my friend (“I said disprove the existence of Santa Claus, not the existence of the name. Let us not get that confused.”).

“The name refers to whatever that name is referring to so the starting point would be to define whatever it is being referred to so we ask this question.

Who or what is Santa Claus?

This is just like another topic I had for example about proving God existing. A faulty argument to make would be proving the name exists. That's not proving God exists because God has a meaning or definition. In order to know God's existence is being proven, you have to know what the existence of God would mean in order to identify it and the evidence thereof that would be attached to it.”
P19: As you stated my friend “name refers to whatever that name is referring to”, so without the existence of the reference, the name couldn't exist either. Isn't that right my friend? Therefore, there has to be a reference which we do or don't know.

“Oh so you're going to use the faulty logic because a name or word exists , the entity or figure itself exists.”
P20: Please my friend, I couldn't understand what's wrong with your own statement “figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children .”.

I'm really sorry, but can you explain it? Since, not only the name but didn't you already defined it with your own words (“the entity or figure itself exists.”).

“If we go by that , we can say a voiceless voice exists because the words exist. We can say quiet noises exists from the same faulty logic and be wrong because we're being dishonest on top of that .”
P21: If “voiceless voice” is the name, my friend, could you refer to what that means my friend (definition)? An outside source perhaps? 

I know quiet noises like fan hums exist my friend. Since quiet means “very little noise”, there still can be noices no? (“voiceless voice exists … quiet noises exists”).

“Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real) absolutely period, because they were written down on paper according to that faulty reasoning. Yet the writers and directors will tell you that said things never happened, they never existed.”
P22: If “Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real)” aren't the writers and directors contradicting by the statement “they never existed”? You should be careful of those writers and directors my friend. They're dangerous people (“Things that happen … never existed”).

“They're not going to argue that figments of imaginations are not real . Why ? It wouldn't be a lie. It be truthful to say these are figments of imagination.”
P23: Correct (“They're not … figments of imagination.”).

“Just like it's truthful to say Santa Claus is the same which you're supposed to be arguing that it is wrong to say that about the character Santa Claus which is an imagined depiction.

Instead of wasting your opportunity of that on debating the actual existence of Santa Claus or not, where are you rebuttals for me saying it's wrong to not tell when something was fabricated when it really was?”
P24: May I ask my friend a question? How do you know whether I'm an imagined depiction or not? You only see words, not image nor sound. I could be an AI or a dream. How do you know my friend? (“Just like … it really was?”).

P25: As I already mentioned my friend, of course not. I'm here to learn something, not to win against you. Unfortunately, I only learned “Santa Claus … is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children” (“I hope you're not going to copout and be disingenuous just to so called win a debate.”).

“It's not about trying to get credit it's about being dishonest about it. What do you not understand about telling the truth? The truth is in the category of correct. Saying something as though it was true giving that impression when it is not is dishonest.”
P26: As already mentioned, being truthful is great. But how come not saying anything is deceiving?

For example, you THINK Felis catus is a part of Canidae but nobody corrects you, does everyone deceive you?

There are many instances where one should not say anything, if it is deception, if it hurts any person in any way, if it isn't productive to anybody, things you didn't understand, things you don't believe, anything causing another a craving, view, and false beliefs, etc. Many things, all done not to deceive but for others sake. No deception intended (“It's not about … is dishonest.”).

“Works the same way in criminal justice. For people not to be falsely convicted, you have to credit the correct people that actually committed the crime. Putting the credit of the crime on the innocent is incorrect and injustice .”
P27: You only need to prove evidence provided is false, you make it sound like revenge my friend (due to a mistake I presume) (“Works the same … injustice .”).

“Everything is rebutted, that is of what you tried to argue.”

“Then I should see no more rhetoric from you about the fairy tale of Santa Claus disproving it. We know Santa Claus is false. Saying that fairytales are real is an oxymoron and contradiction.”
P28: I don't know my friend, I still didn't see any proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus. Also be very careful my friend you could offend the voters or readers (“Everything is … to argue.”).

“Well I'm going to point you worldwide. So your interest in me leads to a worldwide established fact. So either way your interest will include that one way or the other.”
P29: Same as P2 and P3. My friend, I don't know about worldwide, your burden of proof is all that matters. If it's that much of a fact worldwide, I don't think you couldn't find a scientific or any other research regarding it right? (“Well I'm … the other.”).

“Let me get this straight. So because I use the language "a figure or person ", means it's a real entity but just not one that gives presents, is that your point?”
P30: Correct (“Let me get … your point?”).

“It's a moot one. It's no different from watching a movie or reading a book. I see you reading a Spiderman comic book or watching a Spiderman movie. I ask who is that other individual fighting spiderman. You say "oh THAT PERSON IS the bad guy or IS a villain".”
P31: The image you saw is named ”bad guy” and “IS a villain". Correct my friend, now you know it exists (“It's a … villain”).

“You don't necessarily have to use the word "fictitious" because it's redundant. We already know the context . The context is fictitious or false so we're simply describing something within that understood context.”

“Just like the context has been indicated here going back to the first round. I speak on falsehood and telling the truth.”

“The context of the topic is on or about what is fiction and falsehood.”

“Then I expand in round 2 expounding upon that.”

“Keywords : Santa Claus falsehood”

“So we're starting off indicating we'll be talking about a fabrication, work of fiction, a fairytale.”

“I think you're confused on the topic.”
P32: I don't know, I feel like rather than my friend proving “Santa Claus is not real” as in C1, my friend takes “Santa Claus is not real” for granted. Something like begging the question or is it a complex question? (Would love to know in the comments or in a vote by someone). But still, it's the same as P29 (“It's … the topic”).

“You already agree or have not denied that it's wrong to deal in falsehoods not telling the truth.”

“That's the topic.”

“The harm you're mentioning here is in the category of wrong that I'm talking about.”

“So as far as the debate goes, you're already in agreement.”
P33: Seems we're having repetitive statements as in P17. I agree and every logical person would agree that it's “wrong to deal in falsehoods”, but as stated in P26 we're not obligated to forcefully tell the truth either right?

I would agree with you my friend, all I ask is proof of “Santa Claus is not real” (“You already … in agreement.”).

“The existence of Santa Claus is not up for debate. If you want that , you can message me on that even though it's non controversial .”
P34: I'm honored and humbled by this invitation for a debate. In the future, if I could prepare for the debate (will take at least a month), I would certainly love to debate with my friend. Thank you.

C5: I hope all counter arguments stand. I will wait until my friend’s argument.


- Not for the sake of argument -
5. I really don't understand where this debate is going, my friend is trying to refute C1 “Santa Claus is not real”. But instead my friend claims,

“Santa Claus … is a figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children”
“fabricated fairytale”
“crafted fable”
“imagined depiction”
“fabrication, work of fiction, a fairytale”

Different forms, yet all prove existence one way or another. Even though none of them are outside sources. I really don't understand it. Well at least my friend is trying to do something.


I thank my friend's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.

Round 4
Pro
#7
Then we go on and on and on.

Long and drawn out.

What's in quotes is what you stated and or what I already stated. 

"Do you sincerely believe that it's a possibility that Santa Claus is not a fabricated fairytale?”
1. My friend, I heard stories about some people named Albert Einstein, Chakravartin Ashoka, King Arthur....."

A basic yes or no would of suffice.

"Only reality stays the same with time. This is what I meant (“unpack what you mean”)."

Just can't quite follow everything you're saying.

Santa Claus is false simply put. Not wrong to tell children that .

"Please my friend, I couldn't understand what's wrong with your own statement “figure or person falsely credited for given presents/gifts intended for children .”."

It's what's wrong with your understanding. I try to help you the best way how .

"I'm really sorry, but can you explain it? "

Explain what?

"If “voiceless voice” is the name, my friend, could you refer to what that means my friend (definition)? An outside source perhaps? "

It's something false such as Santa Claus. To put it simple. Just because the name for it exist, doesn't mean what it is isn't actually false.

"I know quiet noises like fan hums exist my friend. Since quiet means “very little noise”, there still can be noices no? (“voiceless voice exists … quiet noises exists”)."

That's the definition you're using for it. The definition of no sound, complete silence, that isn't a quiet noise. Just because the name for it exist, doesn't mean what it is isn't actually false.

We can agree on all this in context. It's ok .

"If “Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real)” aren't the writers and directors contradicting by the statement “they never existed”? "

I don't know why you're asking me is it contradicting unless you're agreeing that it is faulty reasoning like I said that you were giving me.

So just to reiterate from what you just quoted from me .

"Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real) absolutely period, because they were written down on paper according to that faulty reasoning. "

The point is just because names exist, words exist for things, it doesn't make the very things necessarily not false.

"You should be careful of those writers and directors my friend. They're dangerous people (“Things that happen … never existed”)""

Their honest in telling the truth about what is false. So if you are going to call them dangerous, that may conflict with what you said about telling the truth.

"How do you know whether I'm an imagined depiction or not? You only see words, not image nor sound. I could be an AI or a dream. How do you know my friend? "

I would know by any evidence that I care to pursue. But evidently, no pun intended, it's not necessary to debate this topic. So sort of a moot point. I won't call it a red herring but proved futile.

"But how come not saying anything is deceiving?"

I don't think I understand the question.

"For example, you THINK Felis catus is a part of Canidae but nobody corrects you, does everyone deceive you?"

It depends on "everyone's " intent and motive. Remember deception starts with or involves intent.

"There are many instances where one should not say anything, if it is deception, if it hurts any person in any way, if it isn't productive to anybody, things you didn't understand, things you don't believe, anything causing another a craving, view, and false beliefs, etc. Many things, all done not to deceive but for others sake. No deception intended (“It's not about … is dishonest.”)."

Bottomline just to be clear , deception is intentionally not to tell the truth or give fabrication.

"You only need to prove evidence provided is false, you make it sound like revenge my friend"

Do you understand my point about criminal justice?

" I don't know my friend, I still didn't see any proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus. Also be very careful my friend you could offend the voters or readers"

Oh no offense to readers. Let's get that out there in the open. They should be always have that reception every time they read anything on this site. Now you go to any merchant, manufacturer, any home in the world, any where a product, package, present, gift, item is given to another, they have no record of Santa Claus or any figure according to the fabrication acquiring the item.

Reason being because it's a fabrication of course by those perpetuating it to children in the name of commercialism. Also because the actual records of all the items come through sales of material and are marked up in inventory and receipts that can be traced to parents purchasing the items. Either parents or any individual party that utilized a form of payment.

So you check any item exchanged in commerce ANY WHERE in the world, something you can SEE for yourself. You will find this information at least under legal procedure, a bill of sale. 

Now through homemade or self arranged items or gifts, they too are concocted via individual material that was purchased. Anything else, we can search for a trail of evidence of its origin depending on what it is.

"Same as P2 and P3. My friend, I don't know about worldwide, your burden of proof is all that matters. If it's that much of a fact worldwide, I don't think you couldn't find a scientific or any other research regarding it right?"

I think I just answered this where I stated "So you check any item exchanged in commerce ANY WHERE in the world, something you can SEE for yourself." I went over in detail in that entire response.

"The image you saw is named ”bad guy” and “IS a villain". Correct my friend, now you know it exists (“It's a … villain”)."

Yes I know it exists as a false character. We agree there.

The point in this topic is it is not wrong to say something exists as a false character or doesn't exist as a true figure as it be the truth yes.

" I don't know, I feel like rather than my friend proving “Santa Claus is not real” as in C1, my friend takes “Santa Claus is not real” for granted. Something like begging the question or is it a complex question? (Would love to know in the comments or in a vote by someone). But still, it's the same as P29 (“It's … the topic”)."

I believe you think something is real just because the name for it does.
But I've made my point on that.

"Seems we're having repetitive statements as in P17. I agree and every logical person would agree that it's “wrong to deal in falsehoods”, but as stated in P26 we're not obligated to forcefully tell the truth either right?"

I don't know. It's not the topic. If you want to have a topic about forcefully, just send me a message on that.

"I would agree with you my friend, all I ask is proof of “Santa Claus is not real"

Already offered to you the past rounds. You can disingenuously reject it or get off of it.

Maybe we just don't understand each other that well. Maybe it's a pretense from your side. But at this point I think the topic is exhausted.
Con
#8
First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers.

P35: Sure my friend, if you can answer this question I will give you an answer. Do you believe that Albert Einstein is not a fabricated fairytale? (“A basic yes or no would of suffice.”).

“Santa Claus is false”
“It's something false such as Santa Claus.”
P36: Same as P2, P11, P18, P28, P29, P32. All I'm asking is some scientific proof my friend. Which I'm sure that you could easily find, my friend.

Here my friend, since this was asked multiple times, I think you are not aware of this. So I will help you, my friend.

Whenever you make a claim, for example, I'll claim that cats have a tail, teeth, and claws. And for proof I'll reference Britannica with this link https://www.britannica.com/animal/cat/additional-info in which it stated “cats are characterized by supple low-slung bodies, finely molded heads, long tails that aid in balance, and specialized teeth and claws”.

Since Britannica consists of fact checking, images, multiple references it is considered an authoritative source by many. And enough to fulfill the burden of proof. You can read more here my friend 1, 2, 3, 4.

So I'm sure there must be some sources, thesis or any research regarding this popular topic, all you've to do is reference my friend.

Please my friend, if you've any questions, let me know I'll help you out (“Santa Claus is false … “).

P37: Sorry about that my friend. Thanks for correcting the definitions for me my friend (“The definition of no sound, complete silence, that isn't a quiet noise.”).

“"If “Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real)” aren't the writers and directors contradicting by the statement “they never existed”? "”

“I don't know why you're asking me is it contradicting unless you're agreeing that it is faulty reasoning like I said that you were giving me.”
P38: Sorry my friend if I used such faulty reasoning. Could you kindly let me know where I made that mistake, my friend (“I don't know … me.”).

“The point is just because names exist, words exist for things, it doesn't make the very things necessarily not false.”
P39: Sorry my friend, since the definition of name included “a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing”, I thought that there has to be a person or a thing in order to use a name (“The point is … not false.”).

"Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real) absolutely period, because they were written down on paper"

“writers and directors will tell you that said things never happened, they never existed.”
P40: If you believe writers and directors were truthful, be careful of the one who said “Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real) absolutely period, because they were written down on paper”. That person is a dangerous liar, my friend. Such people will definitely try to destroy you my friend (“Their honest in telling the truth about what is false.”).

P41: An example to show that I'm a figment of your imagination, my friend (“I would know … futile.”).

“"But how come not saying anything is deceiving?"”

“I don't think I understand the question.”

“"For example, you THINK Felis catus is a part of Canidae but nobody corrects you, does everyone deceive you?"”

“It depends on "everyone's " intent and motive. Remember deception starts with or involves intent.”
P42: You're totally correct my friend, totally correct, remember it very well my friend.

When we say Santa Claus, and gods exist we don't mean to deceive in any way my friend. We don't have anything to gain from them now have we?

The only problem there is like you aren't born to read and write, you can't see unless you practice. So you don't have to take our word for it, go and see for yourself (“I don't think I understand the question.”).

P43: May I ask a question, my friend? If someone asks your name or a child's name which you named, is it something you made up (fabrication) or not? (“Bottomline just to be clear , deception is intentionally not to tell the truth or give fabrication.”).

P44: If I said that you want to make others see your way about the world like “Santa Claus is not real” without letting themselves find out, will that describe the point my friend. If not, can you please describe it to me my friend (“Do you understand my point about criminal justice?”).

“Now you go to any merchant, manufacturer, any home in the world, any where a product, package, present, gift, item is given to another, they have no record of Santa Claus”

“Reason being because … of payment.”

“So you check … a bill of sale.”

“Now through … what it is.”
P45: Well that's probably because those who received them are probably dead. We're talking about someone centuries in the past, aren't we my friend? (“Now you go to … Santa Claus”).

“I think I just answered this where I stated "So you check any item exchanged in commerce ANY WHERE in the world, something you can SEE for yourself." I went over in detail in that entire response.”
P46: I don't know my friend, feel like you are asking me to find evidence for “Santa Claus is not real”, which is probably shifting the burden of proof (“I think … response.”).

“Yes I know it exists as a false character. We agree there.

The point in this topic is it is not wrong to say something exists as a false character or doesn't exist as a true figure as it be the truth yes.”
P47: I think I don't understand something my friend. The definition is “a character … who opposes the hero”. So how come a character becomes a false character, my friend? (“Yes I know … the truth yes.”).

P48: I would love to write to you my friend. I'm honored and humbled by this invitation. Can you take this as acceptance? I gracefully accept (“If you want to have a topic about forcefully, just send me a message on that.”).

“Maybe we just don't understand each other that well. Maybe it's a pretense from your side. But at this point I think the topic is exhausted.”
P49: Oh don't be discouraged my friend, unless I was able to successfully convince the argument, please my friend let us continue this, even after round 5 my friend (“Maybe we … exhausted.”).

C6: I hope all counter arguments stand. And all questions answered. I will wait until my friend’s argument.

- Not for the sake of argument -
This is really a great discussion my friend. I loved it and love to continue it.

I thank my friend's time and effort. And looking forward to the next argument.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Finally we're at the end. This thing has gone on long enough.

Let's get to the last of what you have to say.

"Do you believe that Albert Einstein is not a fabricated fairytale? (“A basic yes or no would of suffice.”)."

This is the loaded question fallacy. Apparently Albert Einstein was never a fairytale so this was a fallacious setup question. Don't do that and call me friend.

"All I'm asking is some scientific proof my friend. Which I'm sure that you could easily find, my friend."

Scientific proof is no good to you when you ignore it. You keep asking but all you have to do is read , not reject but READ what I've posted.

"So I'm sure there must be some sources, thesis or any research regarding this popular topic, all you've to do is reference my friend."

My reference is your eyes observing the entire world. Why? Do you trust your own eyes?

How do you know anything else isn't just made up?

I love how people pretend and play opposition's advocate so hard.  Hey I appreciate your effort but it didn't help you.

I hope you don't really think Albert Einstein is false and Santa Claus is real .

"Please my friend, if you've any questions, let me know I'll help you out"

Likewise to you and the readers.

"Sorry my friend if I used such faulty reasoning. Could you kindly let me know where I made that mistake, my friend"

Yes why did you ask "aren't the writers and directors contradicting by the statement “they never existed”? "”

For the readers. Debate is pretty much over.

"I thought that there has to be a person or a thing in order to use a name "

I don't know what you don't understand about the following:“The point is just because names exist, words exist for things, it doesn't make the very things necessarily not false.”

You can message me on it. Most likely I won't be back to read your part of this round .

"That person is a dangerous liar, my friend. Such people will definitely try to destroy you my friend"

No they're telling the truth and they can prove it. If you reject that like you reject what I've said, we can't really help you.

"You're totally correct my friend, totally correct, remember it very well my friend."

I am correct in my position on this topic, thank you.

"When we say Santa Claus, and gods exist we don't mean to deceive in any way my friend. We don't have anything to gain from them now have we?"

You're going to have to check with the specific person why they're saying what they're saying to anyone and their intentions on it. Gotta be careful with that word "we". 

"someone asks your name or a child's name which you named, is it something you made up (fabrication) or not?"

When you say "made up", in the context of this topic, something that is not true. So if it's a true name, it's not made up. Do you follow?

" If I said that you want to make others see your way about the world like “Santa Claus is not real” without letting themselves find out, will that describe the point my friend. If not, can you please describe it to me my friend"

I'll put it this way , if they find out Santa Claus is false before I tell them or answer them if they ask is Santa Claus false, so be it that way.

"Well that's probably because those who received them are probably dead. We're talking about someone centuries in the past, aren't we my friend?"

No no stay with me. You asked for proof that Santa Claus is not acquiring the presents, here it is in every merchant you go to. See for yourself. They'll agree with me that is wasn't Santa Claus depicted in the obvious fairytale.

"don't know my friend, feel like you are asking me to find evidence for “Santa Claus is not real”, which is probably"

Well that's your feeling. But the fact is I'm showing you where to find it. See my reference is the world starting with all the merchants you can find. You can start with the one in your own neighborhood. People often reference a link(questionable). I'm referencing all location addresses you'd find a retailer and merchant at .

See, don't avoid the proof just because you weren't expecting it or was hoping it wouldn't be there.

Santa Claus is another fairytale. It is not another religion. I truly don't know if you're being disingenuous about this or not. But it is what it is.

"So how come a character becomes a false character, my friend?"

I never said anything about becoming a false character. I'm going to stick with the exact wording I used .“Yes I know it exists as a false character. "

Exists as , not becoming. Try to not misrepresent. Golden Nugget to take with you.

"I would love to write to you my friend. I'm honored and humbled by this invitation. Can you take this as acceptance? I gracefully accept"

You can always send a message as others do.

"Oh don't be discouraged my friend, unless I was able to successfully convince the argument, please my friend let us continue this, even after round 5 my friend"

No this is exhausted. I don't believe in discussing a topic on into forever infinity.


Con
#10
First of all I like to thank my friend for their arguments. And give thanks to the readers and everyone else.


Responses to my friend's last arguments
“Finally we're at the end. This thing has gone on long enough.”
Don't say that my friend, there's still “greater wealth of knowledge” to be gained by this interesting topic.

“you believe that Albert Einstein is not a fabricated fairytale?”

“This is the loaded question fallacy.”
Please my friend, I fail to understand why it's a loaded question fallacy. I really didn't mean that, and I'm really sorry about it if it is a fallacy. I would really appreciate it if you could teach me that in a new debate.

“Albert Einstein was never a fairytale”
Then my friend, the answer to your question is also never. Because I knew Albert Einstein through images, as with Santa Claus.

“Scientific proof is no good to you when you ignore it. You keep asking but all you have to do is read”
Really sorry my friend, I couldn't find a link in your argument. Really appreciate it if you could mention it again.

“My reference is your eyes observing the entire world. Why? Do you trust your own eyes?”

“How do you know anything else isn't just made up?”
I've seen magicians' tricks, so no. I don't trust the eyes, my friend. So I know everything is made up, my friend.

“I hope you don't really think Albert Einstein is false and Santa Claus is real .”
Of course not, my friend. Both are real in your sense.

“why did you ask "aren't the writers and directors contradicting by the statement “they never existed”? "”
Well, two people are making two claims. One claims “Things that happen in movies and fairy tales exist(are real)”. And the writers and directors claim “they never existed”. Simply, one claims existence, other non existence. If you believe one statement, the other statement is false.

“I don't know what you don't understand about the following:“The point is just because names exist, words exist for things, it doesn't make the very things necessarily not false.””
Correct, my friend.

“won't be back to read your part of this round .”
That makes things easy for a voter.

“If you reject that like you reject what I've said, we can't really help you.”
My friend, I didn't reject a single thing in this debate.

“You're going to have to check with the specific person why they're saying what they're saying to anyone and their intentions on it. Gotta be careful with that word "we".”
You're right, my friend.

“"made up", in the context of this topic, something that is not true. So if it's a true name, it's not made up.”
I would've really appreciated it if you could give examples for a true name and for a “not true” name, my friend. Really sorry I wasn't able to understand that.

“if they find out Santa Claus is false before I tell them”
Okay, I wish them best of luck to find that proof, my friend.

“Well that's probably because those who received them are probably dead. We're talking about someone centuries in the past, aren't we my friend?”

“You asked for proof that Santa Claus is not acquiring the presents, here it is in every merchant you go to. See for yourself. They'll agree with me that is wasn't Santa Claus depicted in the obvious fairytale.”
My friend, if you could lend me your time machine, I would really appreciate it.

“feel like you are asking me to find evidence for “Santa Claus is not real””

“But the fact is I'm showing you where to find it.”

“See my reference is the world starting with all the merchants you can find. You can start with the one in your own neighborhood. People often reference a link(questionable). I'm referencing all location addresses you'd find a retailer and merchant at .”
Feel like you proved the point, even though you inform me of the probable place to look, you still ask me to find that proof for you, my friend.

“I truly don't know if you're being disingenuous about this or not.”
For the last time my friend, never.

“I never said anything about becoming a false character.”

““Yes I know it exists as a false character.”
I'm confused, my friend, then “character” and a “false character” don't have any relation to each other? Like it's not the opposite?

“You can always send a message as others do.”
Oh, but my friend, readers of this debate would've loved to see the reference in this debate to continue their reading no?

“I don't believe in discussing a topic on into forever infinity.”
But my friend, as long as there are humans there will always be the question of existence and non-existence, which very few understand.


This being the final round I shall make the closing statements.
In this debate, my friend's position was “Santa Claus is not real”. And the counter argument was to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof of that claim. Even though I wasn't able to find any proof due to my incompetence, I hope voters did.

Due to my lack of eyesight, I wasn't able to find any sources to support my friend's arguments. And it also feels like the same counter arguments revolving around in all rounds.

I also hope my friend didn't make any final round blitzkriegs.

I believe that nobody needs to read the middle rounds to conclude that I definitely lost this debate.

I would also kindly request any voter to consider how hard it was for me to understand my friend's writing and the sense it makes when voting against me. For example, last round how I failed to understand the difference between “character” and a “false character”. Please use these to vote against me.

I thank every voter's time, you're the precious resource of this platform. Thank you.


I thank my friend's time and effort. And give thanks to all readers. And everyone else to make this possible. Thank you.