The War on Christmas Exists

Overview:I put time and thought into constructing an opening argument that is much more involved than anything Con has put forward in this debate. I went through the trouble of researching and providing 11 different sources to support my argument. I even explicitly stated in the first sentence of my argument that I wholly accept the definition put forward by Con. For Con to state that I accepted this debate in bad faith and against his intent is incorrect and unfair. For Con to demand that I forfeit this debate is a disrespectful waste of my time. Con has no right to declare my arguments invalid because he doesn’t like them. Arguments: First, nowhere in R1 does Pro state that he MUST be contacted before starting this debate. He says the debate “should be impossible to accept” but does not prohibit acceptance of the debate without his permission. I did not violate R1 terms by accepting this debate. At any rate, the debate was open for me to take. I didn’t realize Pro wanted to weed out challengers ahead of time- I thought this would be a fun Christmas time debate, read the definitions, then accepted. Usually when people want to prevent people from accepting the debate they make the debate impossible to accept; I assumed an open debate meant the poster didn't care. Don’t penalize me because Con accidentally made the debate open for acceptance. Second, I have argued using the definitions presented in R1. I have argued that there is a large organization trying to stop or defeat Christmas. Con did not provide a definition of what “stop or defeat” meant, so I provided what I consider to be a reasonable understanding of this based on how the War on Christmas is understood by the media at large. The FFRF is trying to defeat Christmas by pushing it out of the public sphere and trivializing its importance in Western socierty. If Con had some special understanding of “stop or defeat” he should have provided it in R1. I am not bound to any definition other than what is presented in R1. I did not and do not have a problem with the R1 definitions, I fully accept them. I DO have a problem with the definitions Con asserts in R2. My interpretation of “stop or defeat” is better than Con’s and my interpretation is all I need to prove to win this debate. I am not a mind reader. Con instigated the debate and left it open for anyone to accept. He got to set the rules of the debate. Since Con had all the power in setting up this debate, he has no ground for complaint unless I actually violate the terms of debate. Third, My definition of “stop and defeat” is not at all disingenuous since a) without my clarification of the term I could not have written my opening argument and b) my clarification is in line with a widespread understanding of the topic of this debate. Stop or defeat can mean many different things in many different contexts, my definition is best suited for the topic at hand and I assumed Con would have no qualm with my fairly common understanding of the phrase in this context. I am not the one arguing semantics- Con is. I presented a case that directly addresses the substance of the Resolution while Con is trying to nullify my work by appealing to a narrow interpretation of the Resolution. This may be a bit pedantic, but when my opponent points out that he said “stop or defeat Christmas” and not merely “defeat Christmas” he misrepresents the meaning of “or.” The word “or” means that at least one of the alternatives presented is true, meaning the definition is fulfilled by either the term “defeat” or “stop” or “defeat and stop.” I am a former policy debater, so I automatically interpret “or” in the correct sense. I don’t think this is super important to the debate at hand but I thought I would point it out for future reference. Con will probably complain about semantics here, but this is a pretty cut and dry case of a word having a specific meaning that Con is not adhering to. To be honest I just assumed his definition of "war" was a dictionary definition he pulled up to pin down the meaning for this debate, I really didn't think this would be a point of contention. merriam webster: “or: used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true” As a side bar: while I understand Con’s desire not to waste time arguing over definitions, it is my personal feeling that the definition in question is actually a substantive issue in this debate. What actually constitutes a “War on Christmas” may be a topic central to resolving the question of whether a war on Christmas exists. I think it is probably constructive for this definition to be a part of the debate Fourth, even after R2 I am unclear on what Con’s specific intent is for this debate. He says he wanted to argue that “there is no large organization attempting to put an end to Christmas.” How, exactly, would any organization “put an end” to Christmas? Does he mean to literally eradicate any trace of Christmas in the form of some atheistic “final solution” to Christianity? Does he mean to legally prohibit the celebration of Christmas? This is absurd and disconnected from the real world discourse about the War on Christmas. Actual discussions about the War on Christmas are centered on how organizations attack traditional celebrations of Christmas, as the FFRF did when it tried to end the 50 year tradition of displaying a nativity scene in small town Wisconsin. In the real world, people talk about the War on Christmas as an attempt to trivialize and minimize Christmas' importance in society. Con’s claim that “The majority of people moving to diminish the influence of the Christian concept of Christmas are looking for an opportunity to celebrate their beliefs the way they would like and not have an opposing belief system forced on them” is false, and I have already shown this to be so. When Wisconsin atheists post signs for fake Game of Thrones religions next to nativity scenes and when Washington groups post signs claiming “religion is a myth that enslaves minds,” they are being overtly antagonistic and mocking. These are not efforts to find “an opportunity to celebrate their beliefs.” My argument has clearly met Con’s definition that groups are trying to defeat Christmas. Finally, the FFRF actually IS trying to build a world where Christmas isn’t celebrated. The FFRF believes that “nontheism” is superior so all forms of religion and actively proselytizes to promote the spread of theism. The far-reaching endgame of the FFRF is a world without religion and thus a world without Christmas. One only has to look at the billboards and bus signs the FFRF purchases to see that the clear desire of the FFRF is a world without Christmas. These signs feature such phrases as “Imagine no religion,” “Sleep in on Sundays,” and the the example I mentioned in R1 which features Santa stating “Yes Virginia...there is no God.” http://ffrf.org... The FFRF describes Christmas as an “intruder” and tries to replace Christmas iconography with traditionally pagan celebrations of Christmas. This all adds up to an effort to “end Christmas.” Conclusion I have constructed a well thought out, decently constructed argument in favor of the Resolution. I have defended the definitions in R1 and have not violated any of the R1 conditions. At no point have I tried to win this debate by engaging in frivolous semantics. Instead I have built a case backed up by research and references regarding real world entities involved in the war on Christmas. In contrast, Con has changed the definitions of R1 mid-debate and demanded I forfeit. Con has not engaged any of my arguments or research, essentially disrespecting the time and effort I have put into this debate. Con has provided only the most meager of arguments and no research of his own, his primary tactic has been to try and bully me into forfeiting based on technicalities of R1. The evidence I have presented leaves no doubt that a large organization is trying to defeat Christmas, and so I have upheld the Resolution.