Santa Claus is Real

Awesome. Thee has provided I with a good challenge. I acknowledge thou as a proper opponent, for the first time. Methinks that thee is still retarded, sadly. Your trap is indeed wonderful, I acknowledge thee as a creative and wonderful opponent. As thou gazes upon my glorious, divine argument, I ask of thee, "Who is the ultimate puppeteer? The one that makes the puppet think he's the puppeteer? "O great and divine Santa, gtfo. You have complete fallen into my trap. I had been waiting for you to post this argument, the final argument, stated this way. Now, as you said, playtime is finished. It is time to annihilate you and win this argument. Time and time again, thou hath failed to grasp thy meaning of this DebateThou hath decimated thyself, and thou is digging his own grave. Thou hath indeed created a character identical to God, the God that I believe in. In thy context of thou's argument, Santa is only similar to God. I hath pointed out Santa's flaws in that context, simply assuming Santa is omnipotent and omniscient, and hath 10 commandments, and hath a book called Babble. I hath criticised Santa's logic. I hath criticised Santa's power, although he has none. I hath criticised Santa himself. In Reality, I hath not criticised God himself. I hath only perhaps criticised him in thou's context. Thy character of Santa is not exactly the same as God, as he is crafted by claims, of which hath no evidence. I indeed believe naught in Santa, as I hath stated, Santa has insufficient evidence. Santa is not the same as God, only same in thou's context which has no evidence, and is totally made out of claims. I hath only debated as an Atheist under thou's context. Thou hath created an unrealistic context, which is completely based on claims and a lack of evidence. That is exactly what I hath tried to point out. All my other arguments criticising Santa, is based on the foundation that thou's context does not hath enough evidence. Thee hath assumed that just because he crafted Santa as God, I hath insulted God. No, I hath naught insulted God, as your context hath not enough evidence. I hath rebutted this in my last round, and hath included that thee's context hath not enough evidence. Thee's logic is flawed, he hath created Santa out of claims. Only therein the flawed thinking of thee, is Santa real. I hath stated this continuously throughout my argument, it is my main argument, one of my foundations. I could easily claim that thou is a camel. But thee is not a camel. I however, keep insisting that thee is a camel, without proper evidence to back my statement up. This is how thou sounds. There is naught the same amount of Evidence for God and Santa. I hath provided extreme rebuttals for this, yet thou do not grasp my rebuttals completely. Thou hath not rebutted my rebuttals for how Santa lacks evidence. Santa's sole evidence is about the Babble, imaginary 10 commandments. However, Santa does not hath these. Thou argument about how I Santa is the same as God is flawed, especially as Santa has not enough evidence. (Claims do naught count as evidence) Thou couldn't even rebut my rebuttals about God having more evidence than Santa. No, thou hath keep insisting that Santa has sufficient amount of evidence, the same as God. Thy flaws that cover God's flaws, does not cover Santa's, as Santa does not have enough evidence. God hath real evidence indeed, in the real world, while Santa's hath only claims as evidence, claims made by thou. Now, I shall summarise the Debate, to show that I am the ultimate puppeteer, and Pro my puppet. First, I predicted this outcome, and Con thought that he had "lured" me into this Debate. All my fear, about how I was scared about Con's final argument, is all faked. Secondly, Con's thinking is flawed. He literally gave Santa these powers, that are similar to God. However, we are debating about Reality here, not some Child's flawed thinking. You can't give Santa these powers. He needs to have proper evidence of these powers. Thirdly, the same criticism that I used cannot be used against God, especially as Santa needs to have proper evidence of these powers in the first place. The powers cannot be simply made up by you. If that was the case, there would be no such thing as Religion. Sorry to inform you about this, but in a Debate, EVIDENCE is the fundamental requirement to winning a Debate. Your argument had NO evidence. And I mean almost literally none. Here are the errors you made. ~Get shrekt~Rebuttal Type 1I provided scientific evidence as to why God is real, yet you do not. Santa does not have scientific evidence, only evidence made out of claims which needs more evidence. I have been emphasizing this throughout my Debate. This is ironic, as this Link should be used against Con instead. The bias is false. This Rebuttal against me is clearly based on the assumption that Santa can be given powers (by you) similar to God. Rebuttal Type 2Pro has yet made another blunder. If popularity cannot be used as a piece of evidence, then surely imagination cannot be used too. Rebuttal Type 2I find this ironic, as you have pointed out the flaw in your argument. "CON does not understand that these arguments were not real, and instead they were to mimic the way a christian would debate. "I am the puppeteer, you are the puppet. I know everything about you. I already knew from the start that these arguments were not real. Time for Rebuttals1. God sometimes ignore us, as we are sinful. God will not abide with our Sin.2. Wish lists are for parents to know what their kids want, so they can rush down to the toy shop when their kids are sleeping.3. I have already rebutted this. God should not need to answer 100% of time. God cannot stand Sin, and we are Sinful. Only the purest of the purest can speak to God, and even then they are not complete pure.4. God has proved himself more than an old book. God is an arbiter, our definition of Sin does not apply to him, and never will. I have already stated this. God has proved himself more by just a Bible. Are you blind? Read my arguments.5. We destroyed our good life, abusing our Free Will. God gave us good life. I have already stated this. Read my arguments.6. I have fking rebutted this in my last argument. God provided oppotunities for Sin, so that Adam and Eve would be tempted. Adam and Eve were spoiled, they only knew perfectness, because of the idyllic world God gave them. God took a gamble, and put that tree smack in the middle of the Garden. The thing is, you need to experience bad health to know what good health is. I have already said that God is the balancer, he balances everything. Which is why he is fair. He creates the good, he creates the bad. He kills, he revives. A threat from God will contradict his nature, as God gave us Free Will. Threatening will be compromising it, and God does not do anything contradictory to his nature.7. Lmfao, your argument is flawed. You are arguing as an Atheist. I could say that the other way round. BoP is on you, btw. So you've to prove it. I rebutted this in the comments.8. You are stupid. Arguing that Santa and God is imaginary is against your position. You are not arguing as an arbiter or as an Atheist, your position is arguing as a believer of Santa. This contradicts his position. I urge Voters to look carefully. I am the ultimate manipulator. You have been fooled, tricked into believing you are the master. Summary:Pro's rebuttals can be rebutted by his rebuttals. Pro has yet to rebut some of my rebuttals. He has provided weak rebuttals for all of them. His argument, the final one contradicts his position. He has not read through my arguments carefully, and he has provided weak rebuttals that have already been rebutted by me. All his rebuttals are based on the assumption that you can create a Character and give him powers. No, the Character needs to have the power by himself, and he requires proof too. Evidence is everything in Debating. Pro obviously does not know this. He has again and again provided rebuttals that are already rebutted. Link. https://scholar.google.com.sg...Summary:Pro loses. His argument is not based on any premise, and he has yet to rebut some of my rebuttals. I have rebutted all of his weak rebuts so far. His argument contradicts his position. I am the ultimate manipulator.