Santa claus was real!!

Response to opening five statements (1) It is true that I have not given a constructive argument for the non-existence for Santa Claus but to do so is not my burden but let me remind my opponent and the voters it is not logically sound to place burden on a party to argue non-existence of anything. To prove existence all one has to do is present a valid example. There is no possibility to prove non-existence by example because it is not possible to present an example of nothing. The greatest logical extent of my argument is to disprove any examples of my opponent. This statement is also Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. No proof being presented towards Santa Claus not existing (which should be acknowledged to be different from attacking proof of his existence) is not proof of his existence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using the same logic I could claim that unicorns exist because no hard evidence has said they do not exist. Furthermore I have already stated: //I declare since Pro is making an affirming resolution he has the burden of proof.// This statement was never contested so therefore Pro has accepted the BOF and I need not to provide constructive evidence. (2) This will be addressed in my main argument. (3) Correct, this is part of my opponents burden. It should be self evident. (4) I have already partially addressed this in my Round 2 argument. This is a false dichotomy. Just because a distortion may not detract from a claim does not automatically mean it adds to a claim. Whether a distortion exists or not is to beg the question by assuming a true concept of Santa Claus exists. (5) This statement is simply an extension of statement (4) and has already been previously addressed. My opponent does not believe in the supposed distortions in Santa Clauses image. I acknowledge that Pro has this claim but take note this is not the same as acknowledging the claim it self. To do so would again be begging the question. Addressing attacks on my previous arguments My opponent has said: //You state that I have not proven Santa Claus existed. I don’t agree I assert that I have proved it with the sources, which my opponent himself says are reputable.// Pros sources have not proved the existence of Santa Claus. A source is to back up one's premises. Let me draw attention to how my opponent has made little to none actual arguments through out this debate. He has simply pointed the audience to his sources expecting his referrals to debate for him. Pros sources may be reputable but as I will point out later, in my main argument, my opponents sources do not prove what he claims they prove. The next attack on my contentions are self-contradictory: //I never stated those premises to confirm the fact that Santa Claus existed. They help confirm that fact.// Pro states that his premises were never to confirm the fact Santa Claus existed but in the very next sentence he states they do indeed help confirm the fact. There is no difference between confirming the fact and helping to confirming the fact because this is indeed a debate and we provide evidence to back our claims. Main argument My opponent states that Santa must exist through evidence and reasoning as follows: 1. There is a difference between the modern day image of Santa Claus and a supposed historical Santa Claus (which is the Santa Claus he is trying to prove). 2. Santa Claus is also known as St. Nicholas. 3. My sources prove a St. Nicholas existed. 4. Therefore a historical Santa Claus existed. This argument is built upon two logical fallacies: the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of composition. My opponents fallacies begin at his second line. The modern day conceptualization of Santa Claus is also known as St. Nicholas, but there are two uses of the name St. Nicholas. One is the same as the so called "distorted" image of Santa and another is a historical figure, St. Nicholas of Myra. So proving St. Nicholas of Myra existed (which Pro says may only be probable to exist) is not the same as proving Santa Claus existed because Santa is former use of St. Nicholas. The historical St. Nicholas was never called Santa. This double use of a name is the first fallacy. My opponents own sources even say Santa Claus is a legend[1] and is an amalgamation of multiple mythical figures[2] such as Odin, Thor, Saturn, Father Christmas in addition to St. Nicholas. Just because one of the figures Santa is derived from is said to be real does not make Santa himself real. Much like mecha Nazi-zombie unicorn riders are not real because Nazis have actually existed. What is true of one piece is not necessarily true of a whole which it is part of. The reasoning used to affirm the resolution is flawed and my opponents argument simply does not stand. I would like to take this last opportunity to once again thank opponent for the debate. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.northpolesantaclaus.com...