Santa claus was real!!

I, myself, almost fell in the trap of attacking his statement which is a claim that it is widely believed "Santa Claus was a man who wore a red suite and gave presents to kids on Christmas" rather than a claim for Pros personal beliefs or a contention being brought to the debate. Pro claims Santa Claus was not always known as Santa Claus and has provided substantial evidence for this. I will not dispute this. Pro also claims that the image of Santa Claus has been distorted by "cartoonists, radio programs, and the TV". I will not dispute this either. I accept these two pieces of evidence as being true but I fail to see the relevance these two ideas have towards proving the resolution, which is Pros job. I would also like to point out my opponents other premise plopped along the evidence referred to in my paragraph above is unsubstantiated--it lacks validation: "He used to give out presets to kids, which is why the jolly fat man version of him gives presents to kids for Christmas day. " His sources state Santa Claus was said to give out presents not that he did. I will expand and deconstruct this, if you will, contention afterwards. Deconstruction of main contention in round 2: Premise 1: Santa Claus was greatly distorted by cartoonists, radio programs, and the TV premise 2: Santa Claus wasn't just called Santa Claus (he was also known as Nicholas, saint Nicholas, Sinterklaas) Conclusion: Santa Claus did indeed exist. I will begin by reiterating that both premises have been supported by evidence from a reputable source. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my opponents two premises. The problem lies on the reasoning, which in no substantial way utilizes the premise to prove the conclusion. My opponent says "just because who he was has been greatly distorted by cartoonists, radio programs, and the TV doesn't mean he never existed. " but just because Premise 1 does not prove Santa Claus never existed does not mean that the premise proves he did. Premise 2, the existence of many names for Santa Claus, does not prove the resolution either. Pro has not proven the premise and the conclusion correlate and therefore has not proven because one is present the other must exist. I will now demonstrate how fallacious this form of reasoning is. I will reuse the unicorn example. Unicorn has also been known as monokeros, in Middle English unicorn was known as unicorne and in Late Latin as ūnicornis [1]. This is obviously not proof for the existence of unicorns. For the reason something holds many names is not substantial reasoning that it must exist. Break down of secondary contention: Premise 1: Santa Claus use to give out presents to kids (I will assume presents is what Pro meant by presets) Conclusion: The jolly fat man version of Santa Claus gives presents to kids for Christmas day As said earlier the premise is unproven and therefore cannot be used as evidence for the conclusion. If one does assume Premise 1 to be true he finds that it still does not provide proof for the conclusion. Giving out presents does not necessarily mean that a jolly fat version of said entity that is giving out presents will give presents to kids for Christmas day. If Obama gave his wife a present is it sound to say that a jolly fat version of Obama will give presents to children on the day of Christmas (December 25th)? Of course this reasoning is folly unless there is a conceptual requirement of Santa Clause in which a jolly fat version of him will indeed give out gifts on Christmas day to youth that depends on whether he "use to give out presents to kids". It should be noted that Santa Claus is assumed to exist, which is another leak that needs to be fixed in the premise, and if this contention draws back to the resolution (which it does not) it is again circular reasoning because evidence for the point which is to be proven is based on a assumption it is already correct. I would like to also reiterate that this conclusion has not been tied back to support the main argument (Santa Claus was real); jolly fat versions, that give presents to children on Christmas, of an entity do not constitute the existence of that entity. Closing statements I will now hand the debate back to my opponent. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters for reading and considering my case with their best intentions to remain unbiased and sober while judging the each parties cases. I shall wait for Pros rebuttals and new constructive arguments. Sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...