The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas

Pro stated: “By recognizing and celebrating Christmas above all other religious festivals, the government is demonstrating a preference for Christianity above all other religions. My opponent has not bothered to argue this point, and so I assume he recognizes it as true.” Rebuttal: Naturally. The debate is not concerned with if Christmas has federal recognition. I already stated that the Holiday received federal recognition in 1870. My opponent’s burden is to show why this recognition is unfair, unconstitutional or otherwise undesirable. This is an empty objection. --------------------- Pro stated: “It’s bad enough, though, the government showing such a marked preference for Christianity and making all federal employees take a day of out of respect to a religion they may not follow.” Rebuttal: Again, my opponent failed to argue how a “mandatory” paid holiday is unfavorable. Stating that the employee is “forced” to observe the day would insinuate that the employee is forced to pray, worship or otherwise partake in the ritual. Instead, the employee is given a fully compensated period of leave which can be spent in manner desirable to the employee. My opponent has failed to show a victim group. --------------------- Pro remarked: I suppose they (the Federal Government) keep the essential services running. I don’t really see how that affects the argument, though. Rebuttal: The argument is affected by the mere fact that federal observance is a luxury, not a duty. A vast congress of uniformed service members are forced to forego observance in lieu of mandatory hazardous duty in foreign, hostile conditions. This premise nullifies the entire concept of “forced” observance. With many Federal agencies, we actually see forced non-observance. As the Air Force core value states:” Service before self.” Pro flagrantly dropped this argument. --------------------- Pro remarked: You astonish me. I would never have thought you would put a citizen’s feelings before his rights. Or that you would say freedom is about being positive. Rebuttal: My opponent clearly missed the premise. As I stated in round 2, the federal recognition of Christmas passed in 1870 by full recognition of both Houses. The representatives of the American Public introduced the bill and so it’s only logical that an equal measure is required to repeal the bill. By ignoring public opinion my opponent has conceded an incredible pillar to his premise, which is the Law that recognized Christmas to begin with. This is the second point my opponent has flagrantly dropped. --------------------- Pro wasted an incredible amount of space answering questions that weren’t asked. These, above any other arguments, are the most ridiculous arguments my opponent has furnished. It’s not a difficult task to debate someone when you grant yourself the luxury of putting words in their mouth. Highly condescending. Rebuttal: The purpose of the revenue snapshot was to illuminate the vast importance that Christmas has to our economy. By granting Federal employees a paid winter vacation, it encourages the employee to participate in the holiday economy. In essence, the paid holiday leave is most certainly being filtered back into the economy, stimulating the incredible revenue growth experienced only during this season. The incredible profits enjoyed by the Federal Government also indicate that public support for the festivity is pervasive, making an appeal to authority or an appeal to ethics irrelevant. As I’ve stated before, my opponent has failed to establish a victim group. It would have been a good start for him to show another religion campaigning for federal recognition. Perhaps he could have cited a secular appeal to the courts to remove the Holiday. Alas, my opponent made no such arguments at all. --------------------- Pro stated: So many wonderful cultural and religious festivals that thrive without government interference! Why can’t Christmas be like that too? Rebuttal: Laws don’t change because you really, really want them to. Christmas probably “could” be like that too, but you must show why it should be like that too. --------------------- Pro said: Yes, the vast majority of Americans find no religious significance in Christmas Day. It makes sense, then, to replace Christmas with a secular holiday. Such as winter solstice. Rebuttal: Amazing objection. Perhaps my opponent doesn’t realize that Winter Solstice is Pagan and not a secular observance? It dates back to the Norse empire and Rome. [1] Additionally, as I’ve already stated, Christmas observance is relative. Christians observe it religiously, the secularist observes it culturally. My opponent has not only dropped this point, he has also failed to show that Federal observance is religious in nature. This is the third premise dropped by my opponent. ------------------ Pro cited the following source: “Christmas is a Christian holiday marking the birth of the Christ Child. Decorating houses and yards with lights, putting up Christmas trees, giving gifts, and sending greeting cards have become holiday traditions even for many non-Christian Americans.” http://www.usa.gov...... Rebuttal: That is a definition from a public relations website, it’s not a law. Additionally, the source directly concedes that Christmas observance is not necessarily Christian. If my opponent would like to see what a legal guideline is, let me cite the ruling of Ganulin vs. The United States (1999). As per the judge: “Courts have repeatedly recognized that the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized. ...By giving federal employees a paid vacation day on Christmas, the government is doing no more than recognizing the cultural significance of the holiday.” [2] Argument extended. ------------------ Conclusion: Pro built a weak and careless resolution in his first round. Without rhyme or reason, he stated simply that the Government shall observe “NO public holiday,” provide “no public funds for Christmas trees,” and grant “no official acknowledgement of the day.” As we can see from the debate, Pro immediately dropped the first two burdens. This is most likely because he realized too late that Federal Observances are not public. As I stated (and my opponent dropped this argument also), there is a difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday. Instead, my opponent focused on the third portion of his burden ONLY. Remarkably, he never established a single argument for his burden. Rather, he spent the entirety of his debate trying to defend against my attacks on his burden. My opponent has clearly failed to satisfy the burden he laid out in round one. Furthermore, he has failed to adequately defend against my attacks. This debate was very on-sided but I would like to thank my opponent regardless. I found the topic worthwhile and this debate helped me establish an educated opinion on the issue. I’d like to thank the voter for reading the arguments and (without any pun intended) I’d like to wish everyone a peaceful and joyful holiday season. Vote Con. http://www.bbc.co.uk... [1] http://atheism.about.com... [2]