Perpetuating the myth of Santa Claus to children is bad

As a starter I'd like to say my opponents definitions were admirably precise and equitable, something to be appreciated. As I am Con I will be refuting Pro's arguments and his contention that "perpetuating the myth of Santa Claus to children is bad" i.e. it is harmful in nature. In turn, Pro must prove that Santa Claus' existence - at least in the minds of children - does them a quantifiable amount of "bad". Rebuttal: (1) "Santa Claus is irrational... For a start his supposed activities would break all the rules of physics - how could anyone fly around the world with magical reindeer in just one night visiting every child? How would his sleigh stay up in the air? And how could he get into so many bedrooms - most people nowadays don't have chimneys to come down, and he wouldn't't fit down one even if they did?" It would seem your argument here for harm to children is on the basis of their coexistence alongside irrationality. However, I dispute that irrationality is harmful in of itself for children. Take for instance my favorite children's book "Rainbow Fish" [A]. The hero of this book is a blue fish with beautiful scales who refuses to share them with anyone, even the little ugly fish who begs for them! Because he was so rude, he loses all his friends and becomes very upset. He then visits the wise Octopus who states: "he should share the beauty of his scales with his friends" [A]. Rainbow Fish then realizes his mistake and beings sharing his bedazzled scales with the ugly fish, who are eternally grateful for the fashion upgrade. Now this story is unquestionably "irrational" - indeed there are not a great many things in this world more fantastic than a mythical talking octopus - however its usefulness is by no means dampened by its fantastic nature. The irrationality of this story - much like the myth of Santa Claus - is a tool for teaching abstract moral concepts to minds that are ready to be introduced to the esoteric nature of moral platitudes, but can't necessarily comprehend them. I doubt seriously that you will take your 5 year old and explain to him that he should be a good child simply because the societal standards of American culture demand he abide. The ethics of children do not follow the logic of Hegel or Kierkegaard - they follow the standards laid down by Rainbow Fish and Clifford the Big Red Dog. To deprive them of this introduction to morality would do infinitely more harm to them than telling them a story involving magic and talking snowmen. Indeed, I would wager that my child taught through the "myth" of Santa Claus would have an intrinsically more truthful concept of morality than your child taught simply through "rational means". (2) "The theory of Santa is so unrealistic that children will be confused what actual reality and logic is." Your contention that a child's belief in Santa will be so strong as to warp their conception of reality and taint their ability to reason is completely unfounded. A belief steeped in irrationality does not make a person themselves completely irrational. That's like saying a religious person who believes in miraculous things is by his very nature an entirely irrational person - one who is incompetent to make decisions in any field of his life because he holds certain beliefs. I have religious friends who believe the most illogical things, yet they are entirely rational beings in the realms of economics, business, and science. Your contention that a belief in Santa is "all-corrupting" is ridiculous, and logically inconsistent. (3) "Santa is a class oppressor - for he always seems to give the most and best presents to children in the richest families while those who are poor get little or nothing. A single person can be enlisted as naughty or nice, good or bad, based on a few acts." This is one of the most fantastic statements I've read in awhile. How is a man - real or not - who spends 11 months and 30 days of a 12 month year building toys to deliver for free to children a "class oppressor"? Here is the definition if you were unclear on the meaning of the word "oppressor": an unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power. I don't know about you, but Santa Claus doesn't strike up images of a tyrant in my head - Stalin perhaps, but not Mr. Claus. If you would then, I would enjoy hearing exactly how Santa Claus exercises his "authority" over children in an "unjust" manner by building them free toys, hypothetically of course. Or you can explain why Stalin didn't build toys for his peasants since he was an oppressor too, right?. (4) "You can't judge a person based on a few observations." The Naughty List is not about impulsive punishment - it serves as a reminder that there are consequences for bad behavior. However, if you like, we can be logical about children behaving badly and simply treat them like we would rational adults and throw them in prison - albeit one with plenty of blankets for nap time in their cells. It is important to note also that the Naughty List is not permanent in nature. Santa Claus, besides being an "evil Class oppressor", often allows children to migrate to the Nice List once they have ceased their bad behavior and redeemed themselves. (5) "We should have a strict regard for the truth, and see the world as it is regardless of the consequences." It is rather ironic that you would right this statement considering your entire argument is based on the abdication of harm. You would rather deprive children of a natural introduction to morality concepts and throw them into the fire so to speak, despite the inevitable harm that would cause. It seems to me that you are rather conflicted in your intentions and I would appreciate a little clarification. Are you arguing that we should do anything necessary to protect our children from harm, or that we should tell them unconditionally the nature of the world in which we live and the harm it will eventually cause them. It would be important for you to note that these two world views are mutually exclusive - you can't save the children by throwing them into the fire... (6) "The priority of believing in the face of evidence or reasoning which contradicts that belief, promotes a model of learning based on authority and accepting irrational concepts, discouraging healthy skepticism." I'm unsure of your experience with Santa Claus - though I may deduce that he has harmed you in some grave way - however I'd like to inform you that most children discover on their own that Santa Claus is not real. Indeed, the investigation is perhaps one of the most critical in our learning as children: our skepticism and desire for truth inevitably outweighs the innumerably more pleasurable and rewarding state of ignorance and bliss. We as children, before even our fledging concepts of truth and fiction have formed, are willing to sacrifice our "magic" for a more congruent reality despite never having been told about the beneficial qualities of the "rational" and "logical" world. I would posit that having never believed something false, your children would never feel the passion behind discovery or truth. Your position would deprive them of this lesson, and indeed would cause a great deal of harm to the general human character simply for its' banality and rigidity. The breaking of our first beliefs is the most important lesson we can learn. This is the value of Santa Claus - denying the young soul the adventure of discovery and the acquisition of a certain healthy dose of skepticism is perhaps the most harmful thing you could do. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com...