Perpetuating the myth of Santa Claus to children is bad

Thank you for the response. "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." Simple. Intelligent octopus do exist. Perhaps talking ones don't. 1 point of irrationality. However, the moral of sharing counters this irrationality, making it actually beneficial to children. Let's describe Santa Claus. He flies in a sleigh pulled by reindeer. 1 point. He flies down chimneys. 2 points. He travels around the world in one night. 3 points. He has a hidden factory in the desolate iceland of the North Pole and manages to live. 4 points. He has worker elves. 5 points. He makes toy all year and doesn't run out of money, supplies, or tools. 6 points. Santa has never died even though he is very old and has health problems, meaning his obesity. 7 points. Compared to the fish, Santa is much too irrational. And once again, his moral is unclear. The octopus story taught us about sharing valuable things and making friends out of that action. What is Santa's moral? Why is he here? What has he taught us that we never knew? "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"." Now, seeing as this is the final round, I will prove that this higher amount of irrationality (this I proved in the last refutation) is not beneficial and negative. A little stimulation of the brain is good, I believe. However, the amount of stimulation Santa provides is far too large. You know those little rubber rooms they have in jails where a man is tied up in a thick, white coat? Those are generally for crazy people whose minds are over-stimulated. Here is a list of people who have apparently done a few very crazy things [1]. Their minds are simply way, way too creative. Instead, they should try doing something to help society. Santa is one of the beginnings of too much imagination. Here's a many who wants to fly, apparently, like Santa and like a superhero [2]. Too much irrationality also hurts people's feelings because they stick out [3]. Others believe that person is weird and it creates lack of self-confidence. "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"." What happens when the other person is nasty? Our civilizations today aren't based on the concept that everyone will be kind to each other. That is why we have wars. Because we can be selfish and want things for ourselves. The concept of Santa Claus has never stuck for a long time and it never will. Why prolong the existence of something that doesn't exist and that people will learn is fake? Sometimes, people can be nice because they want something. And what if the receiver doesn't want to be nice? The person who is selfish then changes to an angry, mean mode. If you are insinuating that people will be nice to make friends, that's untrue. No one likes a super nice person who follows you to the end of the world. You need to be true to yourself, and if mean is who you are, you shouldn't be disguising yourself. I ask my opponent if he could show any sources that prove his point that people will be kind simply so that other people will be kind. Otherwise, my argument still stands. "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." I argue that my contention still stands for several reasons. First of all, the word my opponent used in his first sentence I quoted was "entirely." Entirely has a very broad definition. I agree with my opponent that those who accept irrational concepts are not completely absorbed in a psychological, disorientated world, but I must argue that, as I previously proved, irrational people do commit some, occasionally many irrational actions. And this type of irrationality does not contribute to society if we want to progress in technology, our universe, and to a better future. Point still stands. "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." What I am arguing is that Santa Claus (the parents) is unfair. Richer parents give their children more presents of higher quality even if they are bad. Poorer parents give their children less valuable, fewer presents even if they are super good. This is unfair and is not instilling the idea that Santa is a fair, jolly person who helps all. You yourself said he is "equitable." I have proved he isn't. When I meant class oppressor, which my opponent seems to be seriously focusing on, I meant a person who makes certain classes suffer. In the case I have presented, certain classes will suffer. Take for example, a young, rather poor schoolboy attending his class the day after Christmas break. "What did you get for Christmas?" asks the wealthiest one in the group. The poor one will shy away from his answer and would be sad. I would like my opponent to focus more on the situation I have presented at hand instead of over exaggerating at the concept of the "class oppressor," even though Santa is one. "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." I have shown that the naughty list is essentially useless. Unlike prison where you are kept in a cell to regret your actions, the naughty list is fictional and a myth. As I previously stated, since parents love their children so much, they will always give their kids presents even if they are bad. The kids will then take advantage of this. This is what I am arguing. "So in other words we should tell them the truth, even if the truth does more harm than our myths?" What harm is there in the truth? As I stated, myths, once figured out to be a lie, hurt children on the inside, learning that their favorite hero isn't real. "So instead of having their dreams revealed as false, you would rather children never have any dreams at all?" I would not let them have such overly irrational dreams. Why build a block of fiction that will eventually topple, when you can build a block of science that never will? Fiction is not the future. Science and physics are. I am not saying that all fiction should be thrown away, just that too much fiction (Santa) and too little science is bad. Seeing as my remaining characters are few, I must conclude. My opponent has not brought in his own points to back up that Santa is good. This is what the CON must do. 1. Santa is not fair. 2. He is too irrational. 3. Science is what we need to invest in, not lies. 4. Santa can cause emotional distress when kids find out the truth. Perpetuating the myth of Santa is bad. Thank you and vote PRO. 1. http://www.43things.com... 2. http://musicallmorning.blogspot.com... 3. http://answers.yahoo.com...