Santa Clause exists

The Pro thanks the Con for returning. Rebuttals: The Con has so far accepted my request for a more value orientated debate, the Con has also accepted all my definitions and my value/value criterion, as the Con did not refute any of those points, we must assume that he or she agrees with them. Rebuttal : "Santa is not very beneficial to Christmas." The Con has stated that Santa is not very beneficial to Christmas because it 1. Detracts from the Nativity of Christ. 2. Santa Claus only benefits the economy. 3. Teaching kids about Santa Claus is not a justifiable lie. 4. Santa Claus is only a benefit to society during the holiday season. 5. Santa Claus does not enforce the "giving" in Christmas.To first refute the Con's first point, Christmas is a international holiday celebrated by a lot of secular people (Mohamed, 2013). To them, the Nativity of Christ doesn't matter, which means that if the Con were to somehow make the birth of Christ the focal point of Christmas, we would have a lot less people celebrating Christmas, as only Christians would be celebrating it. The fact that many of of the holiday traditions do not revolve around a certain religion is great, and gives everyone the right to celebrate Christmas the way they like to. (Note: Holiday traditions are also formed by the people, which is to say that the more secular people a holiday has, the more detached it may become from a religion.) Not to mention the fact that Santa Claus is one aspect of Christmas that ties every nation together, as everybody, nowadays, that celebrates Christmas will have to learn about Santa Claus. In Conclusion: Santa Claus does detract from the Nativity of Christ, but it also allows secularists to celebrate the holiday, as well as tie together an international group of people with one symbol. Next, to the Con's second point. The Con states that Santa Claus doesn't benefit society, but instead benefits the economy. This is a strange argument to make, as a growth in the economy benefits all of the U.S. (or whatever country the money is going to). Happiness has been shown to increase with a higher GDP per capita, at least up to a level of $15,000 per person (Wilkinson, 2007). Therefore, rise in the GDP per capita is most definitely good for society, so this point is moot. (The Con has also stated that Christmas MAY contribute to the rise in sales, when the evidence he used for that point were statistics of Christmas sales, and not Hanukkah or Kwanzaa) The third point that the Con made was: the lie of Santa Claus is not a justifiable one. The Con, however, does not provide any evidence showing that it is unjustifiable, as did not state is value criterion as morality, but instead agreed with the Pro's value criterion of retaining holiday spirit, therefore making this another moot point. The fourth point that Con made was: Santa Claus is only a benefit to society during the holiday season. That is true, however, the value criterion of the debate, thus far, is still the retention of holiday spirit, making this point also moot. The Con's fifth point is that Santa Claus does not enforce the giving in Christmas. While this is technically true, as Santa Claus does not force random people to exchange gifts, it does however, require parents to give gifts to their posterity which is giving. The Con argues that this does not constitute as giving, as the person receiving is not in need. To the Pro, it is a very simple matter, giving is giving, no matter who gives or who receives. To Pro, no matter who one might be in the social/economic ladder, the holiday spirit of giving still rings true, and all who can give shall give, and all who can receive shall receive. Sadly, there are many more points that the Con have made in their rebuttal, but sadly it is in rebuttal form, which means that many of those points are shrouded by thousands of characters, spewing information and refutations. I applaud the effort, but I simply cannot refute to all the points, as some are without warrant, some without claims, and some without impacts. The effort that one must put in to find all of these points is simply too much, and I urge the voters to take this into consideration: if there is a point that I missed, and is huge, with a complete Claim Warrant Impact, then I will allow that to carry over into the next round if the Con states that the argument will carry over (example: The Pro has missed my contention of ______ so therefore the argument carries over). However if this is not the case, as there are some arguments that clearly have no claim or warrant, this is a problem of conduct, as this style of debating is known as a spread. For more information on "spread" visit this website : http://debate-central.ncpa.org...My second contention carries over, as I have stated that the burden of proof lies on the Con, and the Con, has neither refuted the burden of proof, not provided any evidence of Santa Claus' nonexistent nature. The second contention was put there to simply argue that there is no way one can disprove the existence of Santa Claus using evidence, which is to say that this debate shall be a value debate, the Con has not responded to this part of the contention either, making debate both a value and factual debate. Works Citedhttp://www.pewresearch.org... of secularist who celebrate Yuletide/Christmashttp://www.statista.com... of Christmas saleshttp://en.wikipedia.org... definition/explainationhttp://en.wikipedia.org... of Christ definition/explaination http://www.cato.org... makes people happy (GDP argument)