Santa Claus is Real

The final round has begun. As thou gazes upon my ultimate and final argument I ask of thee to listen to this epic song. It shall enhance the fury and power my grand argument possesses. ~ ~ ~ Now, playtime has finished. It is time to utterly annihilate christianity. Time and time again thou has failed to grasp the meaning of this debate. I have tricked thee and thou hath plummeted into my trap. I have created a character identical to God. The God whom you believe in. The character I have devised is Santa. Instead of pointing out God's flaws to thee myself, I have fooled thee into finding God's flaws yourself. Thou hast criticized Santa's logic. Thou hast criticized Santa's actions. Thou has criticized Santa's powers. In reality, thou hast criticized God himself. All of your criticism of Santa applies directly to God. This is because I crafted the character of Santa to be EXACTLY the same as God. The only difference between my character of Santa, and God is that you do not believe in Santa. Therefore your first instinct was to demonstrate to me that Santa does not exist. In doing so thou has only proven that God does not exist. Congratulations, thou has debated as an atheist, only this time instead of debating for God's non-existence thou has debated for the nonexistence of God only under another name. Your failed logic in this debate has consisted of this. First, thou pointed out the illogical flaws of my belief in Santa Claus. Then, thou gave explanations to defend God when I pointed out that God has the same illogical flaws. Now, I ask, why do the explanations that thou used to cover God's flaws, not cover Santa's flaws as well? It is interesting that thou criticized Santa in this way if thou already knew the explanation to these flaws. Now, I shall summarize the debate to demonstrate that CON has been my puppet, and I... the master. First, I lured CON to enter the debate about a mythical character that CON knew would be easy to obliterate. Next, I gave Santa all the powers that are possessed by God and I made Santa act the same way God did. I knew that CON would criticize these powers and actions because they are ridiculous. CON bombard Santa (God) with criticism. Then, I used the same criticism that CON used to destroy Santa and I used it against God. Suddenly, CON had a defense for each and every one of these criticisms. Sorry, to inform thee but it does not work like that. Either you revoke all criticism for both Santa and God or you keep it and prove that both are imaginary. Also, here are errors made by CON throughout this debate. ~ ~ 1. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... CON makes exceptions to explain why it is acceptable for God to do something that CON has already stated is not acceptable for Santa to do. Example: "God indeed doesn't need prayers. Prayers is just something we Christians do, to acknowledge God, to attain his blessing, to communicate to him, and gain wisdom. God did not request Prayers." I could say the same about Santa's wish lists, yet, before CON defended God, CON criticized the need for Santa's wish lists. This is a clear example of the bias CON has for believing in God and how desperately he attempts to hold onto his belief. 2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... CON has mentioned that God is a common widespread belief, when in reality that is irrelevant. 3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... I suspect that CON does not understand my arguments. My evidence for this claim is the fact that CON continues to point out the illogical nature of my now irrelevant arguments that I made in the first few rounds. CON does not understand that these arguments were not real, and instead they were to mimic the way a christian would debate. ~ ~ ~ Time for rebuttals 1. You say that "God will not do anything you ask." Then why pray? Just saying though, what about this, "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son." 2. Sending wish lists is just something we do to acknowledge Santa. Why did you criticize Santa if you knew the answer beforehand? 3. "God does not need to answer prayers 100% of the time" Hmmm. Interesting. But you criticized Santa for not answering 100% percent of the time. You said that Santa should be able to because he is omnipotent. Isn't God Omnipotent also? According to your logic God should also answer 100% of the time. Why are you contradicting yourself? 4. You say God has already proved his existence. How? Through an old book? Any logical person wouldn't deem that to be enough evidence. Just because the generations before us claim that this book is true is not enough evidence. Do you think it is right for someone to suffer torture for all eternity just because they could get themselves to believe in something that has no evidence other than a highly questionable book. Even people who are no where near the intelligence of the great God who is so loving and good, are smart enough to realize that torture is wrong. People know that it is not right to torture someone that steals. Someone that sells illegal drugs. Even someone that kills another person. People are smart enough to know that torture is not right. And that is just a little bit of torture. Nothing compared to an entire eternity of torture. Would you say that not believing in God is anywhere near as bad as killing someone? Yet, God tortures non-believers for eternity. What kind of irrational monstrous God do you believe in? 5. You are quite the hypocrite. You say that Santa's thinking is flawed when he doesn't care about starving people, but God, his thinking isn't flawed at all. Just because a few people are "sinful" means that God has the right to put innocent people through the horrible agony of starvation? Here is a thought. Maybe people wouldn't be "sinful" if God gave them a good life. (CON SKIPPED IN HIS NUMBERING) 7. CON originally criticized Santa's elves by saying that the elves have higher technology then humans but the toys are still the same. I responded by saying that God supposedly has superior intelligence yet his actions indicate the same intelligence as humans. (actually much lower intelligence.) CON's ridiculous rebuttal was "God always has a plan." CON mentions that the Bible predicted Jesus's coming 2,500 years beforehand. How is this supposed to demonstrate God's incredibly advance and FAR superior knowledge, logic, and reasoning? If God were a person living today he would be ridiculed for being racist, sexist, and for having extreme anger issues. The reason that God acts this way is because he was made up by man thousands of years ago. At the time morals were next to nothing, and because of this, it was acceptable for God to act the way he does in the Bible. There are so many examples that show God's lack of intelligence. God is so dumb that he made two humans and told them not to eat from one tree. When he is not watching they eat from the tree. What did he expect? These people are literally new to Earth. They know nothing about manners. They have never been taught. How could God expect them to know how to follow rules. Then God is so dumb that he punishes every human that will ever live for all eternity just because of this one event. To further prove God's lack of intelligence, God kills people without regret just because they were "sinning." Is it a coincidence that at the time killing people for no reason was completely acceptable? If God were actually smart like he is described to be, then he would teach people to not sin. And if for some reason that didn't work, he can threaten them without actually violently killing them. I'm pretty sure that a threat from God, the most powerful being in the universe, should be enough to change someone. 8. So, you criticize Santa for having to go to a lab to be experimented on when he could've used his omniscience but then you say that it is fine for God to not give out his information using omniscience because God can do anything he wants. How can you criticize Santa for something and then say it is fine of God to do the same thing. Talk about double standards. Also, you are fine with following a God that is allowed to kill everyone if he wants. Interesting. I'd rather believe in nothing then in a psychopath that can not manage his anger and is so unpredictable that he could turn on you at any second. You say that God is proven scientifically. How do you know that the science that proves God actually proves Santa's existence instead? Maybe Santa made the DNA. You say God is logically proven. How? Logically Santa makes more sense. Tell me, what evidence "proves" God that doesn't also prove Santa. This debate is over. Santa does not exist. God does not exist. I can say that Santa does not exist because I do not believe in God. If I were to believe in God then I can not say that Santa does not exist because the same amount of evidence supports both. You however must believe in Santa because you believe in God. If you believe in God then you must also believe in Santa because both are supported by the SAME EXACT evidence. Mathematically If.. A = the supporting evidence that proves B = the probability of God's existence C = the probability of Santa's existence A=B and A=C then B=C This means that I will win the debate because you believe in Santa. If you believe in Santa then I win. CON believes in Santa Claus so... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VOTE PRO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just remember CON... "It is time to accept the cruel reality, and not live in the idyllic reality that you believed in, and continuously deceive yourself. That reality will be shattered, broken by me."