Perpetuating the myth of Santa Claus to children is bad

Following the established format, I'll now challenge my opponents rebuttals. (1) "The story you used as an example is not extremely irrational" I am intrigued as to how you managed to classify Santa Claus as more "irrational" than a talking fish who can donate his scales to his neighbor fish, albeit only after learning the merits of sharing from a talking octopus. Indeed, you managed to write the absurd sentences: "And you have an octopus, a wise mentor, who helps the fish share. This is a very good moral, yet not too irrational." I would question the validity of any point you would make - or have made - if you consider the existence of a talking, superbly intelligent, octopus plausible in any manner. The fact or the matter is that both stories are equally irrational - yet that does not prevent them from holding merit: a point which you conveniently have attempted to bypass with this distraction. My original point still stands that irrationality - regardless of its "degree" - in of itself is not a negative quality. You must prove that in all cases, irrationality is to be avoided since it is overtly "harmful". Until then, this contention is negated. (2) "That is much better than telling a child to be good simply to receive more presents of higher quality. The child is acting like a nice person simply to get what he wants. That's not just or right." And yet that is exactly how we learn about morality - a point you seemed to have missed. We do not learn morals due to some intrinsic drive we posses towards ethical existence. It is not in our nature to be benevolent simply because that is the "moral" thing to do. We are benevolent in the hopes that others might be benevolent towards us - that our kindness might be "rewarded". You seem to have this artificially elevated concept of morality beyond its existence as a social regulator: we do good things not because they are good, but because we hope our neighbors might show some reciprocity and we may benefit. Indeed, my original point still stands: my child will have a more truthful and practical knowledge of morality when taught through Santa Claus than a child who is simply told to be good because its the right thing to do. Your contention is still negated. (3) "That person is incompetent...Some religious people do make idiotic decisions" You seemed to have missed my point entirely here, so I'll clarify again. You stated that a child's belief in Santa would cause all of their subsequent beliefs to be irrational for the simple proximity of the rational and irrational. I stated that a rational person is completely capable of holding certain irrational beliefs, yet remaining otherwise perfectly rational in all other aspects of their life. Your argument that all religious people are completely incompetent to make any rational decision simply because they believe certain theologies is hyperbole in the extreme. Irrational beliefs do not make a person entirely irrational - this is a distinction you need to understand. Either way, your contention is negated simply because you cannot prove that a person who holds one irrational belief must therefore hold only irrational beliefs in totality. (4) "The poor will suffer because their parents, who are technically "Santa Claus"..." This is an unfounded contention. In the eyes of the children who believe in Santa Claus, their parents are no more Santa Claus than you or I might be. Indeed, from their perspective - and regardless of their socioeconomic status - I would challenge you to find one single child in the entire world who believes as you do that Santa Claus is a "class oppressor". The point I offered still remains valid: Santa Claus does simply not fit the definition of a "class oppressor". He is benevolent, jolly, without political motivation, and entirely equitable - this does not discount the fact that parents operating as agents of Mr. Claus are less than perfect - but then that is not our argument as you surely know. Therefore, your contention is again negated: Mr. Claus is not a class oppressor, though if you wish you may call the parents of those poor children "class oppressors", though I rather doubt that will go over well. (5) "The naughty list is simply meant to scare children to be nice" Much like prison is meant to dissuade potential criminals with following through with their actions. Yet that is besides the point. You must prove that the Naughty list causes irreparable harm to children, which I have yet to see from you. And if you would oblige me, I am interested in knowing what your alternative to "scaring" children would be. Lecturing them about the necessities of morality? For I assure you that I learned far more about ethics through practicing them than I did about learning them in the classroom. (6) "What I meant when I stated that we should have a strict regard for the truth is that we should not make up ridiculous stories to tell our children" So in other words we should tell them the truth, even if the truth does more harm than our myths? Since your entire argument is - as I indicated earlier - resting upon the notion of abdicating harm, it would seem you just said you might do harm regardless of the alternatives that due less harm. From simple observation, your argument is completely logically inconsistent. You cannot keep the children from harm by harming them. I don't understand how you can argue this particular point. (7) "And the older children will spoil it for the younger children who see that their dreams and hopes all topple down and crash" So instead of having their dreams revealed as false, you would rather children never have any dreams at all? Indeed, you might even go as far as outlawing every dream a child might have on the basis of your "strict regard for the truth" and rationality. For all your efforts then to prevent harm, I surmise your children will be much, much less happy than mine. In fact, I might even put on a Santa suit of my own to give your children some presents on Christmas Eve simply to alleviate the pain they will inevitably feel at not having ever dreamed or been irrational; at not ever having been human. You seem all too willing to abandon the irrationality of human nature as something to be conquered and cast off - you would have us all be robots and machines. And yet you have missed the very quality that makes us vastly superior in terms of intelligence when compared with machines - we are able to think outside formal systems of thought. You contention that we should never do this is perhaps the most devastating ideal one could impart to a child. On this grounds, among many others, your resolution continues to be negated. (8) "These are my main arguments, once again. 1. Santa is too irrational to brainwash children with. 2. Santa is evil. 3. Children will be disillusioned. 4. Santa stunts intellectual maturity. 5. Kids will lose their self-confidence and confidence in their parents when they find out the truth about Santa. 6. Santa is not the true meaning of Christmas." Contention 1 was addressed and negated, as were 3,4, and 5. Contention 2 was never brought forth before now, though I would gladly debate it if you insist upon furthering that argument in the next round. Contention 6 is irrelevant and should not be continued - you have plenty to try and defend without bringing in another claim simply to provide your argument with sources. I look forward to the next round. P.S. I figured I should throw in a source. http://www.auburn.edu.... Revolution of the disenchanted, oppressed children against Overlord Claus is only 137 days away. Marx would be giddy.