The War on Christmas Exists

As outlined in this debate, to uphold the Resolution I must show that the war on Christmas exists. In R1 Pro specified that a “War” is: “an organized effort by a large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad” I have put forward that both the FFRF and the atheist community at large are engaged in a campaign that meets this definition of war. My case is built on a litany of efforts carried out by these organizations to push Christmas out of the public sphere, undermine the influence of Christmas, and subvert Christmas by turning traditional Christmas celebrations into a secularized “winter holiday.” I have provided a great deal of evidence supporting this claim, none of which is disputed by Con. My case is entirely based on proving that there is a large organized effort to defeat Christmas. My opponent’s case consists ENTIRELY of claiming that what I have described does not constitute a “war on christmas.” He has offered no argument for this claim other than to repeatedly protest that my case does not constitute an effort to “defeat” Christmas. This means that the only way Con can win this debate is if he has provided a better definition of what an effort to “defeat” Christmas and if he has proved that I do not meet his definition. I put forward that Con has not offered ANY explanation of what it means to “defeat” Christmas. Con certainly has offered definitions of “defeat,” this I fully acknowledge. But Con has not explained what these definitions mean in the context of the War on Christmas. What does Con think it means to “win a victory over Christmas?” He has provided no explanation of what a war on Christmas WOULD look like, so he has no ground to claim that the actions of the FFRF is NOT a war on Christmas. I have repeatedly asked the question “If the FFRF’s tactics do not constitute a war on christmas, what would?” and Con has consistently failed to answer. Con has no explanation of what it means to apply his definition of “defeat” to Christmas, but I do. I claim that since Christmas is a pervasive and public cultural celebration, a defeat of Christmas would be to erase Christmas from the public sphere, to make Christmas inconspicuous, and to replace Christmas with a cultural celebration. These things would constitute a “victory over Christmas” and these are all things the FFRF is actively trying to do. My definition of “defeat” is merely an interpretation of Con’s definitions in the context of the debate, not some radical reinterpretation of common english words. My understanding of what a war on Christmas would look like matches the common understanding of “war on christmas.” When people on television or the radio talk about the war on christmas, they are talking about an effort to delegitimize and diminish Christmas. Con has claimed that the FFRF merely wants religious equality, but this is a gross mischaracterization of their efforts. First, the broad reaching goal of the FFRF is a world without religion. The name of the organization is the “Freedom From Religion Foundation;” the name is pretty explicit about their goals. The FFRF has supported ad campaigns with the phrase “Imagine no Religion.” They do not fight for equality, they mock existing religions by launching malicious ad campaigns against private churches. Con can claim the target of this ad “deserved” to be mocked, but the bottom line is buying a billboard just to make fun of someone is malicious and demonstrates you have a vested interest in harming the target. The FFRF wants a world without religion and by extension a world without Christmas- this isn’t a matter of debate its a fact the FFRF is open about. Under any definition of “defeat” or “war,” an organization working to eradicate another entity is certainly waging war. Second, the actions of the FFRF aren’t aimed at recognition of their beliefs, they are attempts to silence and attack the beliefs of others. The FFRF didn’t make their voice heard by ending a 50 year old nativity scene tradition, they only ruined a time honored celebration. The FFRF had the opportunity to make their voice heard in Washington state and used that opportunity to post a sign saying “religion enslaves minds” next to a nativity scene. When atheists urge a boycott of stores displaying the phrase “Merry Christmas,” it is not a protest of freedom. Rather, it is an attempt to coerce private individuals into silence. At best, the FFRF has a perverted view of “equality” which can only be achieved by attacking those who have different beliefs. Third, atheists already have equality - thats why they could put up their own displays in Washington and Wisconsin. They chose to use their equal access to a public forum to berate and mock Christmas. The FFRF had the freedom to put up their billboards, they aren’t being suppressed. Finally, there are plenty of groups fighting for equality in our society that do not engage in the antagonistic tactics of the FFRF. Regardless of the end goals of the FFRF, their tactics are attacks on existing traditions. Rather than engaging in a war on Christmas, atheists should wage a campaign focused on tolerance and acceptance. Such a campaign would not involved billboard featuring a little girl declaring “all I want for Christmas is to not go to church.” As a technical point of order, Con has no grounds to claim I violated the R1 terms. I accepted this debate in good faith, did the research for this debate, and wrote up substantial arguments. I adhered to the definitions provided in R1; our only dispute is over a word that Con did not define in R1. Moreover, I didn’t start the argument about definitions- Con did! I never disputed any of Con’s definitions, he disputed mine. I thought I understood what Con meant by “defeat Christmas,” but clearly Con had some other definition in mind (though I still don’t know what). I don’t know how I could have debated this on Con’s terms when he never explained what his terms were- either in R1 or later. Nowhere in R1 did Con prohibit me from taking this debate. He requested that challengers contact him, and I did not see this request, but Con did not prohibit my acceptance. The debate was open for anyone to accept, and so I accepted it. Con is trying to win this debate on a technicality, but I technically did not violate his rules. I don’t like having to make arguments about technicalities, I wish Con would have just debated this straight, but it would be unfair to invalidate all the time and effort I put into this debate because I accepted a debate Con accidentally left open for acceptance. Con made a mistake, but we could have had a vigorous debate regardless. It isn’t fun for me to have to defend myself from allegations that I cheated when I put the time into a fairly involved opening argument. I would have rather argued about the Resolution. In conclusion, my description of what constituted a “defeat” of Christmas is the only one presented in this debate. My description is compatible with Con’s definitions of “defeat.” I have shown the FFRF is working toward a world without Christmas, which by any measure would be a defeat of Christmas.