Holiday Skirmish: MemoryShock vs Chissler: "Santa For President"

The topic for this debate is “If Santa Claus Ran For President, He Would Have Beaten Obama”

MemoryShock will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Chissler will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Happy Holidays Everyone!

I of course would like to begin by extending thanks to chissler for what will likely be an entertaining debate and Semperfortis for setting us up.


My position is, had Santa ran for President he would have beaten Obama. This is not only true, but a no brainer as the American voter responds to familiarity, of which I will demonstrate throughout the course of this debate.

But first, I would like to establish that Santa does not have to have been born in the United States to run for President nor does he need to actually perform the job of being President after having won the election. The debate title is specifically directed towards the campaigning process and voter decision.

In fact, I think this debate will necessarily be predicated upon the voters and how the public arrives at a decision regarding whom their vote will go to. I will establish beyond a doubt that uninformed and reactionary voting occurs more as a rule than an exception.

Calls for Congress to Read Bailout Bill: It was just last night that the 110-page Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was finally hammered out, but members of Congress will be asked to render a vote on the bill as early as today -- making it unlikely that representatives and staffers without advanced Evelyn Wood speed-reading training will gone through the thing closely before issuing a yeah or nay. My Emphasis [1]

While the above example is not regarding the voting process for President, it does show that even our elected officials are prone to casting a vote without a full comprehension of what it is they are voting for. Many bills are passed based on pressing needs and are usually attended to based on a topical issue; many times a bill will have many sub headings and policies that are lumped in all together, even if they are only loosely based on the topical policy. These bills effect the lives of everyone and they are voted on through ideology or associated rhetoric!

Do we really expect that the average American, whom has a 40 hour work week and familial issues to be concerned with analyzes the issues competely and consequently place their vote based on an educated opinion?

No. And we see this in how the American voter is catered to during the campaign process, with photo ops of the candiates with their family (to suggest a family orientation that the nuclear family can relate to), eating in public amongst the common folk (debate rules stipulate no images in the opening) and of course the all important rhetoric of the candidate usally centering upon a staunch expression that should they win the election they will solve all of America's problems and make way for a better and brighter tomorrow.

It is evident that the candidates pander to the voter in many irrelevant ways and all of their words and actions are predicated to communicating a likable image that will induce comfort on the part of the voter towards the candidate.

I will demonstrate throughout this debate that the majority of the American public responds to the processed image of a candidate and that this processed image is more important than a candidates stance on the issues.

And that is how Santa would have beaten Obama. Santa exemplifies goodwill towards man, he is commonly associated with as a positive influence on our lives and our behaviours .

My opponent may cite that Santa is not experienced nor does he have any idea how to do the job. This, of course, is incorrect for several reasons, the first of which is that the office of President isn't a solitary position and national policies are not decided by the President alone.

Santa also has an extensive international knowledge as he travels the entire world bringing joy to the hearts of families every year.

I would like to also make it clear that, though I will cite Santa's validity for the job, the debate topic isn't about Santa's qualifications. It is about the public's ability to identify with him and the very real fact that people will vote for a candidate based on the comfort level the feel toward a candidate.

And Santa is just about the most endearing authority figure known to man.

Indeed, the proof is right here when we see that Santa still recieved votes despite the fact that he wasn't even running in the last election.

STUART — Jupiter Islander Tiger Woods, along with Superman, Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse and Snoopy were all considered by some Martin County voters to be better options than the 14 people on the general election ballot for president. My Emphasis [2]

I will keep my opening short as a holiday gift to my opponent ( ) to whom I now turn the floor over to.

What a great debate topic for us to chew on. I thank all involved and I tip my lid to a great opponent. I'm sure we will have some fun.



My opponent has taken the time to inform our readers of how uninformed and apathetic the American voter is. He has also taken the time to let you know what I will be saying and desperately tried to outline the parameters of this debate to suit his position. Our debate topic is...

“If Santa Claus Ran For President, He Would Have Beaten Obama”

I am prepared to do what my opponent has not in his opening, and that is discuss the candidates.

Since the birth of Santa Claus, who has ever had a conversation with him on any topic, let alone national security or the current financial crisis? Has anyone sat and talked with this man regarding the day to day operations of the most powerful nation on earth? No, they have not. Santa Claus is a man who operates incognito and avoids any attention whatsoever. Yet suddenly this man who has hidden for centuries is suddenly going to take center stage in a presidential election? Other than Mrs. Claus and his slaves, also known as his elves, who does he ever talk to? His pets? That seems to be about it.

A man who talks to nobody other than his wife, slaves, and animals is who will be elected to the highest office?

I don't think so.

Who is going to vote for this man?

Santa Claus panders to young children all around the world. NONE of whom are eligible to vote. So those that would be the biggest fan of our Mr. Santa Claus are not going to be able to enter the ballot box and cast their vote. Yet he would still be elected?

I don't think so.

Santa Claus lives in the North Pole with who knows how many children born with abnormalities, and he makes them work as slaves year round to provide toys for children. This slave driver is someone we consider a philanthropist? His abuse of these children is something that I suggest we investigate immediately and invoke sanctions on this underground operation.

When Mr. Claus announces his candidacy and begins to be vetted by the media and has his background searched time and time again, how does he possibly justify this slave operation he has been running for centuries? Would he survive this?

I don't think so.

The leader of the most powerful nation on earth needs to be a dynamic and motivated individual who is going to be prepared to handle any ordeal. Santa Clause procrastinates his lone single task every damn year and leaves it until the last possible minute. WHY? Why would he not approach this task in a more realistic manner and allow children to receive their toys in a more timely manner? And since nobody has met this guy, how do we even know he doesn't have the slaves delivering the toys?

This is not a man who should be running the United States of America.

A man who has countless people imitate him around the world to have children sit on his lap and tell them what they want... this is someone my opponent proposes would be elected to the highest office.

Amazing.

Not only would he lose this election, but his whole operation he's been allowed to get away with for years would go down in flames.

During a time where the economy is crashing all around us, we need somebody at the helm who can show restraint. Not somebody who gives everybody everything they want and ask for. How would the financial systems ever survive with this man in charge? His answer is to give everyone what they want, the markets would burn before he entered the oval office.

As we progress through this debate, I will examine the character flaws within this man that will remind our readers just why he is not somebody that you would vote for. Even though your children may beg that this is someone mommy and daddy should vote for, he is not.

After our debate, you will all know the real story behind this man.

I am prepared to do what my opponent has not in his opening, and that is discuss the candidates.

My opening was designed to communicate a simple truth and that is that the American voter is grossly uneducated to the inner workings of our government system and usually choose which candidate to vote for based on common associations that are easily provided for in the campaign strategies of the various candidates.

There is no getting around this fact and while my opponent may think that accusing Santa of running a slave operation is a valid smear campaign he will note that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Hell, I would start the rumor myself were Santa to run for office and then provide vehement rebuttal to it in an effort to make the opposing candidacy look like insensitive Christmas ruining malcontents who aren’t interested in the common good for society. Indeed, such a tactic has a great likelihood of working precisely because, as I stated in my opening, Santa is inextricably associated with good will towards man. His millennia of charitable reinforcement of neighborly affectation (positive) is not only a shining light of what we should strive to be in our day to day lives, but proof positive that the man isn’t a slave holder.

Indeed, it is ludicrous to think that a man with such extravagant gestures of good will towards mankind would switch personalities when interacting with his helpers.

So while my opponent would like to look past the voting reality of the public and focus on smear campaigns, we can see that such tactics may be used to reinforce the decision of the voting public by demonizing the very alternative candidate into a contradiction of the values they are attempting to espouse by ‘virtue’ of the smear campaign!!

I will continue to focus on my opponent’s position for a bit here and then get into further support of why the voting public would have opted for Santa over Obama.

Since the birth of Santa Claus, who has ever had a conversation with him on any topic, let alone national security or the current financial crisis?

-Snip-

Santa Claus is a man who operates incognito and avoids any attention whatsoever.

My opponent’s above question was actually answered by the following statement, one in which my opponent has freely offered just two sentences away from the original question. You see, Santa does enjoy his privacy, but that does not necessitate for a second that Santa hasn’t spent any time discussing any issues at all. While Toy Building may be a year long endeavor for the elves, Santa merely oversees production and delivers the presents, the delivery of which occupies but one night out of the year. Who is to say that Santa doesn’t travel the world during the rest of the year in a disguise of sorts (though there are enough people who mimic him to where he wouldn’t necessarily need to make himself look like KennyG to blend in with the public… )?

Indeed, here is a candid shot of old St. Nick enjoying some waves:



So my opponent’s assertion that Santa holes up in the North Pole and has no interaction with the public is patently absurd as we can see that Santa does make a few guest appearances throughout the year:

Santa Claus panders to young children all around the world. NONE of whom are eligible to vote.

My opponent also misses the turnpike with this assertion. Santa has been doing his job for centuries. So while the current generation of young’uns may not be voter eligible, the previous generation is. Does my opponent think that just because people grow up that they forget the magical generosity of the man in red? I sincerely doubt it.

And let’s not forget the voter who chooses their vote based on what their children advise; my parents would routinely ask my opinion on whom their vote should be placed as I was usually more informed than they were (which is saying a lot). Had Santa ran for office, I undoubtedly would have advised in favor of Saint Nicholas.

How would the financial systems ever survive with this man in charge? His answer is to give everyone what they want, the markets would burn before he entered the oval office.

This is fallacious as my opponent is assuming that the Holiday Season occurs year round. Everyone does not get everything they want every day of every year, rather there is a specific time of the year set aside for the decadent acquisition of desired material objects. As well, my opponent’s assertion that the “markets would burn” is a gross exaggeration as evidenced by years past; the markets have not fallen due to Santa’s annual free for all!!

In fact, many corporations depend on the Holiday Season as a boost to their fiscal year, either to place them ahead of projected net profits or to catch up to their estimates. The Holiday Season is a crucial point in the year for many businesses and is typically the busiest consumer span of the year. So I really think that the economy may be just fine with Santa Claus in office.


My opponent has done nothing more than to provide a laundry list for a possible smear campaign against Santa while I have taken a more productive route of trying to focus on the voting reality.

What do we know about the voting practice?

- Candidates are selected based on recognition and validity to their respective parties.

Obama was projected to be a candidate as early as 2004 based on his performance and immediately recognizable charisma at the Democratic National Convention. Hilary was projected to be a candidate even earlier as she is the wife of a former President and is very politically active currently. McCain has been suggested as a possible candidate for perhaps as long as Hillary due to his very public friendly history of being a surviving Prisoner of War who has translated an arduous experience into political influence.

What do all of these names have in common?

Easily recognizable personalities who in some way shape or form have an easily recognizable and associable demeanor/history. They relate to the public easily; Hilary was a victim as well as McCain and Obama’s seemingly unassuming ease of character.

Santa shares this easily identifiable persona as well and surpasses all of the Presidential candidates of 2008 in sheer recognizability! As well, Santa has an inherent association towards a better future and a better today by being the foremost leader in charitable acts. Indeed, many world leaders could learn a few things from Santa.

- Voters do not analyze the issues; rather they look at the hot point issues of the economy, war and personal rights.

Since the majority of the voting public does not analyze the issues nor do they crunch their own numbers regarding historical precedence for propagated issues they must rely on the candidates presentation to make their decision as well as the opposing candidates expression and presentation (which my opponent has demonstrated quite ably with the allusions for potential smear tactics). I truly cannot fathom how Santa would not appeal to the majority of voters who base their decision on likeability and comfort level! Hell, in some devout Christian circles, a vote not for Saint Nicholas would be considered blasphemy!! Obama may be charismatic, but how can he possibly compare with a Saint?!?!?

As I have demonstrated above, Santa still receives votes despite the fact that he hasn’t thrown down the gauntlet and announced his candidacy. This type of dedication cannot be ignored and nor would it fail to serve as an indication of the willingness to vote for the man in the red suit based on the exceptional reputation he has built over the centuries.

I would like to return to one of my opponents contentions one last time…

Has anyone sat and talked with this man regarding the day to day operations of the most powerful nation on earth?

…so that I may remind the reader of one thing regarding my opponent’s implicit accusation of “no experience”.

Obama has “no experience or background” on national security, McCain says:

“In all due respect he does not understand…the fundamental elements of national security and warfare,” McCain told reporters aboard his plane during a flight to the Washington area, where he is set to deliver a speech at his high school in Alexandria, VA on Tuesday.[1]

< br />
It was made abundantly clear throughout the 2008 campaign season that Obama lacked experience in running all aspects of a nation such as the United States of America.

This distinction did not prevent him from taking the Presidency in convincing fashion. Were Santa to have run, the experience assertion would have been nullified and the voters would have been faced with two candidates whom have very minimal political careers. As such, the voting public would have had to rely heavily on name recognition and emotive impressions…of which Santa Claus has the indisputably clear advantage.

SQ#1: How recognizable is Santa’s name worldwide?

SQ#2: How recognizable is Obama’s name worldwide?

SQ#3: Does Santa appeal to the specific income brackets in different ways?

SQ#4: Does Obama appeal to specific income brackets in different ways?

SQ#5: Could America not benefit from the wisdom of a generous man who has delighted centuries worth of human beings?

A clear cut presentation of our Mr Claus' character has been presented and my opponent refutes this as a smear campaign. Facts were presented that are widely accepted of this man. Cold, hard facts.

Does Santa Claus, and his impostors around the world, show up at shopping centers internationally to have young children pay to sit on his lap? Yes or No.

The answer is yes, he and his posse of impostors do this. While this gimmick has been allowed to stand for far too long, I ask if we would allow this sort of activity to occur if it were someone else. No, we would not.

So why do we allow it to occur in the first place?

Because nobody investigates this man. We take his effort at face value and leave a few cookies behind to say thanks. Nobody looks into his background and nobody investigates him like they would say a presidential candidate.

My opponent seems happy to conveniently ignore the massive amount of media attention Mr. Claus would be faced to endure once declaring his candidacy. And these behaviors of his would be called into question with the highest levels of scrutiny applied.

Just ask yourself this, if Obama came out today and said that he would allow children to pay him to sit on his lap.. would you reconsider your vote? If your answer to this question is no, then please contact your local authorities immediately and turn yourself in. If your answer to this question is yes, then good for you.

Santa Claus currently has a positive reputation, however it is my belief that this image would never survive a presidential campaign.

Let's have a peak at my opponent's Socratic questions.

SQ#1: How recognizable is Santa’s name worldwide?

I would say it is a very recognizable name.

SQ#2: How recognizable is Obama’s name worldwide?

I would say it is a very recognizable name.

SQ#3: Does Santa appeal to the specific income brackets in different ways?

I would say yes he does. Lower income brackets would have more of a need for his efforts and thus he would have a stronger appeal. I will expand on this further within my reply.

SQ#4: Does Obama appeal to specific income brackets in different ways?

I believe his position on the economy would lead to an obvious yes.

SQ#5: Could America not benefit from the wisdom of a generous man who has delighted centuries worth of human beings?

What wisdom do you refer to? The elves make the toys, his wife cooks the food, his reindeer do all of the work to get around the world. He sits around doing nothing all year, then gets off his fat backside one night a year because he knows people around the world have left him milk and cookies.

There are billions of people in this world who all leave several cookies and a glass of milk for this man. It is not natural to consume this much food at once. I question his personal health and his ability to endure the stress that a presidential campaign would bring on.

So while the current generation of young’uns may not be voter eligible, the previous generation is. Does my opponent think that just because people grow up that they forget the magical generosity of the man in red? I sincerely doubt it.

Who here reading this does not have to buy a toy and/or any present for their loved ones because Santa Claus is going to bring it?

Why is that we have to go buy it ourselves?

Because Santa Claus bails on those that he does not care about. As a child we listen to our parents perpetuate this story of a great man who does so many wondrous things.. but it is a lie! A bold face lie told to preserve the innocence of children around the world. As a child we are told that this man does so much and that we would cherish him, however he does nothing for you when you grow up. And everyone suffers this harsh truth at some point in their life and will realize it sooner or later that Santa Claus will do nothing for you except leave the burden of holiday shopping on your own shoulders.

For this reason, the American voters will not vote for him.

The children who love him are uninformed and do not know the truth, and thankfully for this nation.. they can not vote. Those that can vote, they know the truth and they know that this man does nothing for nobody, except rely on the belief that adults world wide will continue to perpetuate this myth to children that he is a good man so that they will continue showing up at shopping centers to give him his filthy money and have children sit on his lap.

I am utterly disgusted typing this as I have been long since convinced that this is a dirty person who needs to be outed for the person that he is. It is only in sheer luck that I have been given this opportunity through Above Top Secret.

How would this man who has bailed on every single eligible voter, at a time when they needed him, win back their vote and convince them to support him?

Let us take a moment to review some of the victims of this man:

Adopt-a-Family Christmas Program

Adopt a Family for Christmas!

Adopt a Family Programs

These are three links to the thousands and thousands of programs found in Canada alone. They are charitable organizations that assist families with young children who never get to see Santa Claus on Christmas. He brings them nothing, even knowing that their parents are low-income and can not afford to bring presents for them. It is in the opinion of this writer that he selects this low-income homes to not bring presents because their is a higher risk of no cookies and/or milk being left out for him. For that reason, he skips these homes and leaves these children in the cold at Christmas.

Is this a person who deserves your vote?

Even if you are lucky enough to get a gift from him at Christmas time, which many are not, he is only going to bail on you in a few years anyways.

Would I vote for him? No way. I'm very close to calling my local authorities on him this very moment to be completely honest. I believe the impostor at my local mall may have a connection and could be useful in tracking this man down.

Since my opponent has decided to show us these beautiful pictures of Santa Claus, allow me the opportunity to show you the real Santa Claus.



I have several others but I will stick within the terms and conditions of our debate and this board. But I will have you know that if there were no restrictions, the true Santa Claus could be put on display.

I will now pose my Socratic Questions.

1. How do you justify the countless children who receive nothing at Christmas and depend on charitable organizations to provide?
2. With nobody having ever met the real Santa Claus and able to be certain of it, how do we know that the actual one is the one we are voting for?
3. What U.S. state was Santa Claus born in?
4. How much of a calendar year does Santa Claus spend within the United States?
5. Do you agree that it is a violation of every labor law in existence to force these children born with abnormalities to work 365 days a year in the harshest of conditions in the world?

 

 

What we will be touching on further in this debate is just why Santa Claus chose to live at the North pole and set up his slave shop there, as well as potential manslaughter and possible murder charges that I believe should be brought forth on this man.

People have died as a direct result of the lack of concern that he shows for people over the holiday season.

What we will be touching on further in this debate is just why Santa Claus chose to live at the North pole and set up his slave shop there, as well as potential manslaughter and possible murder charges that I believe should be brought forth on this man.

People have died as a direct result of the lack of concern that he shows for people over the holiday season.

My opponent has pulled out all the stops regarding false accusations against the perennial jolliness and benign/selfless acts of Santa Claus. Of course, with every ideal representation of truly great people there is exaggeration; surely Santa has his own faults and idiosyncrasies that would not conform to an errorless individual. All fine and good as we can all agree that no one is perfect.

But to jump right into accusations of manslaughter, murder, debauchery (the drunken Santa image provided by my opponent despite the fact that there is no clear representation of his face and therefore no valid claim to be made regarding the depicted’s true identity) and deviant behaviors of which are meant to undermine Santa’s true goodwill towards all of mankind.

Well, it sounds familiar to me when reflecting upon the smear tactics undertaken to demean Obama’s credibility in the eyes of the American public.

Radical anti-abortion ideologues are running ads that make wild 'Born Alive' accusations against Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a committed Christian, not a Muslim.

Distorted and fabricated quotes from Barack’s books on race and religion are being used to manipulate the public.

The preposterous “whitey” attack against Michelle Obama is completely disproven.[1]

The Obama’s were accused of being murderers as well, in the form of “wanting to kill babies” as defined by anti-abortion proponents. The Obama’s were accused of being religiously affiliated with the Muslim religion, some even going so far as accusing Obama of wanting acts of terror upon the lives of Americans.

The Obama’s were accused of being racist and anti-American.

All false accusations and all real attempts to smear Obama’s road to the White House.

Oh…and not only were they false but they didn’t impact Obama’s victory.

It would stand to reason, as the ideology Obama was declaring in response to the Bush Administrations history that “the bigger the man, the bigger the attempts needed to discredit.

And Santa is one of the biggest ideological men of all time. So it comes as no surprise to me that my opponent is going out of his way to misconstrue the character of a man that we have all looked up to at one time or another. It should be noted that the amount of vehemence inherent in smear campaigns is met with rebukes that are similar in the amount of intensity; many people will see these accusations as false and decry them as such with the same, if not more, dedication as those who intend to discredit.

Politics is a dirty business.

But thank goodness the majority of us have more than rational heads and can see the exaggerations as they were and are. Obama persevered through these malicious attacks and it is without doubt that Santa would have as well.

Does Santa Claus, and his impostors around the world, show up at shopping centers internationally to have young children pay to sit on his lap? Yes or No.

No one has to pay for the opportunity to meet Santa or one of his many helpers and communicate directly what it is they want for Christmas!! My opponent has intentionally misrepresented the option of paying for a lifelong memento in the form of a photograph with a financial requirement to meet the jolly elf!!

In so doing, my opponent has attempted to paint the picture of a financially greedy Santa Claus who is in it for the money. This can not be further from the truth!

Santa Claus currently has a positive reputation, however it is my belief that this image would never survive a presidential campaign.

As I have demonstrated, Obama took a beating through the past election and truth persevered. Santa would have undoubtedly survived as the truth of the matter is that he is not even a percentage point the sociopathic entity my opponent is declaring.

What wisdom do you refer to?

The inevitable wisdom that arises from centuries of existence. My opponent doesn’t truly think that Santa hasn’t recognized societal trends through the millennia, does he?

And everyone suffers this harsh truth at some point in their life and will realize it sooner or later that Santa Claus will do nothing for you except leave the burden of holiday shopping on your own shoulders.

My opponent has gotten lost in a very common misconception regarding Santa Claus; that he does everything to bestow an uncommon decadence upon the population for the hell of it. Completely and utterly incorrect.

Santa is leading by example when he delivers gifts worldwide. He is demonstrating through his own actions that children who are ‘good’ deserve to be rewarded for their behaviour. As well, he is demonstrating that people need to recognize good behaviour when they see it and react accordingly, thusly reinforcing an at times selfless attitude that can enrich personal and informal relationships regardless of race, creed, religion, and nationality.

So where my opponent bemoans Santa’s example of indirect conditioning of younger human beings to the extent that adults are suddenly left out in the cold, I see people who didn’t learn from his example. What I also see and hear of are adults who are absolutely delighted at the expression of a friend or family member when their gift is opened. Indeed, one of my favorite memories with my ex was when she opened a gift that was not what she expected and what she had been coveting for years.

These people would vote for Santa.

People have died as a direct result of the lack of concern that he shows for people over the holiday season.

I find an interesting contradiction here in that my opponent has been quite flip floppy on whether or not anyone knows anything about Santa and then he seemingly ignores his assertions to accuse Santa of breaking every law that we have! I will be eagerly looking forward to my opponent’s ‘evidence’ of such heinous activity.

Socratic Questions:

1. How do you justify the countless children who receive nothing at Christmas and depend on charitable organizations to provide?

I have to admit that I am confused here. There is a semantical error in your SQ#1 in that children who depend on charitable organizations invariably receive something, as opposed to “nothing”, for Christmas. Please clarify your question so that I may provide a direct answer…

2. With nobody having ever met the real Santa Claus and able to be certain of it, how do we know that the actual one is the one we are voting for?

We don’t.

SQ#1: With nobody having ever met the real Santa Claus and able to be certain of it, how do we not know that the actual one is the one we are voting for?

SQ#2: With a majority of Americans having never met the real Barack Obama and able to be certain of it, how do we know that the actual one is the one they voted for?

3. What U.S. state was Santa Claus born in?

That is not known, if any.

4. How much of a calendar year does Santa Claus spend within the United States?

Again, a question that cannot be substantiated. The direct answer is, “I don’t know”.

5. Do you agree that it is a violation of every labor law in existence to force these children born with abnormalities to work 365 days a year in the harshest of conditions in the world?

No. I state no because I do not think that elves can be defined as “children born with abnormalities”.

SQ#3: Do you consider a thirty year old midget to be a “child born with abnormality” with the implication being that a thirty year old midget is incapable of making decisions for him/herself?

SQ#4: What did Santa not bring you as a child that has inspired such a vehement opposition to such an icon of generosity and good cheer?

SQ#5: What is your favorite color?


It is my contention that the voting public reacts to their first impression of a candidate and then proceeds to rationalize this decision based on what is interacted with through the media. Seeing as how there is very little analysis of the issues by the majority of voters (implicit proof can be found through the fact that any analysis is undertaken through propagated media channels rather than industry communications) it can be stated that the majority of people would indeed vote for Santa and would have voted in droves in support of the Jolly Elf as opposed to Obama. In fact. I think that voter recognition/identification with a candidate is so important that the following individual would likely have won in a landslide over Obama as well…



…much less the obvious victory that would have been enjoyed by Santa Claus.


I now turn the snowy landscape back over to my opponent…

What we are faced with here is a fundamental disagreement on the character of this man. My opponent posts a picture of Santa surfing who knows where and I post one of him in a drunken stupor, yet I am trying to slander his character? My friend, I am somewhat confused as to how you continuously say that I am misrepresenting this man when I am only presenting facts.. as you are yourself.

Santa Claus does some good things with his efforts. However, sitting on a sleigh and reaping all of the glory from the hard work of everyone else does not qualify someone for the highest office there is.

Obama is a man who has mobilized millions and inspired a country to stand up for what is right. A true intellect who is ready to run the most powerful nation on Earth. The impact of Obama extends far beyond the borders of the United States. People all around the world believe that their lives are going to be better with him in office. The inspiration of an Obama win was something that nobody was going to overcome.

The thought of Santa Claus as President of the United States is a mere novelty that would wear off within a few days and leave the country asking themselves what the hell they did.

Santa Claus is a novelty, that is it.

Socratic Questions

SQ#1: With nobody having ever met the real Santa Claus and able to be certain of it, how do we not know that the actual one is the one we are voting for?

We don't.

This is on Santa Claus to prove, not vice versa. And before you go there, Obama has shown his birth certificate and the Supreme Court has already given this the attention that it deserves.


SQ#1 - Can you provide a birth certificate for Santa Claus?

SQ#2: With a majority of Americans having never met the real Barack Obama and able to be certain of it, how do we know that the actual one is the one they voted for?

I have yet to see a solid imitation of Barack Obama, so I feel his authenticity has never been questioned. Fred Armisen of SNL is trying and improving, but still has a ways to go.

SQ#3: Do you consider a thirty year old midget to be a “child born with abnormality” with the implication being that a thirty year old midget is incapable of making decisions for him/herself?

The logic behind this question is flawed. A child born with an abnormality does not imply that he or she can not make a decision for him or her self. And yes, a thirty year old small person is a person born with an abnormality. As this condition is found in a very small percentage of citizens, it is abnormal. Thus an abnormality. It does not impact their decision making process.

However, there were intelligent black slaves during the years of American slavery. Whether the individual is intellectually competent or not, being a slave is going to trump all other variables.

SQ#4: What did Santa not bring you as a child that has inspired such a vehement opposition to such an icon of generosity and good cheer?

Santa brought me nothing. My parents and immediate family provided my Christmas' for me each and every year. We did not depend on the shoddy operations of a sketchy person with an underground operation.

SQ#5: What is your favorite color?

Blue.



To elaborate on my question from my previous reply that my opponent has sought clarification on, I will pose it one more time.

SQ#2 - 1. How do you justify the countless children who receive nothing from Santa Claus at Christmas and depend on charitable organizations to provide their Christmas?

SQ#3 - What specific policy of Santa Claus do you view as superior to that of Barack Obama?

SQ#4 - What is Santa Claus' political affiliation?

SQ#5 - Would you speculate who you feel Santa Claus would select as his running mate?



It has been my opponents position that the American voter is an idiot and will not rely on the facts. My opponent states that the American voter will go with the more recognizable name and thus would select Santa Claus in this situation.



Above is a picture of eligible voters who have come out in full force to support their candidate of choice. Most people don't vote. Of those that do, I would say very few would take the time to actually attend a rally and/or speech. Obama mobilized millions this past summer with a successful campaign. With his daily speeches, millions of people were turning out to see this man talk.

Now let us take a minute to look at a crowd of people who showed up to see what they hoped is Santa Claus.



Need I say more?

Santa is leading by example when he delivers gifts worldwide. He is demonstrating through his own actions that children who are ‘good’ deserve to be rewarded for their behaviour. As well, he is demonstrating that people need to recognize good behaviour when they see it and react accordingly

So Santa Claus is an elitist?

The problem in your statement above is that none of us here can define what is "good". If I do something that is considered "bad" by some social standards, but my reason for doing so was to save the life of my child.. than am I not a hero? Am I not altruistic, noble and "good"? Yet, Santa Claus would leave me without a Christmas present because I didn't fit his standard?

Santa Claus reads his list and checks it twice but he NEVER takes the time to come out and meet the people that he checks off his list. He relies on this list of who is naughty and nice and decides there and then who will get a Christmas. He does not go out to meet the people he excludes, he does not look into the who and why, he just crosses them off and doesn't look back. Is this the effort of a man who should be given admission to the oval office? No, I'd like to reserve this for someone who will take the time to follow up on the naughty and see what happened and then see if we can help them out. Santa Claus doesn't do this though and hasn't since he began this operation.

Unfortunate to see good people get grouped with the naughty and lose out on Christmas because Santa Claus didn't give them a second chance.

This "tough on crime" approach and right-leaning social positions is what contributed to a Republican loss this year. With Santa Claus seemingly sharing a position with these people, I can only assume that he would be going down with that ship as well.

The world is evolving in all facets and we are trying to keep up on a social level. With Barack Obama, we have made great strides. With Santa Claus, we would have a novelty and a nightmare on our hands trying to decide who is the real Santa Claus.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry at your local shopping center will be telling you that he is the President of the United States.

The recent U.S. election is a prime example that the American voter has evolved. No longer are they the mindless puppet of years past where issues are not considered. This election was a vote on the best person for the job. And in a electorate landslide, the American public decided that Barack Obama is the best man for the job.

They selected him over John McCain, an American hero who gave everything for his country. If there is something that the American public, it is a decorated war hero who has sacrificed for his country. Yet this man still lost in a landslide to Barack Obama. And my opponent is somehow convinced that the novelty of Santa Claus would somehow win this election?

It is my belief that the American voting public would realize that the country would laughed off the face of the earth when Santa Claus shows up in his bright red suit and winter toque to meet with world leaders to discuss current issues. The most powerful nation on earth would become the biggest punch line on earth. American, a nation that is very aware of their self-image and working tirelessly to improve it, is not in a position to elect a novelty.

My friend, I am somewhat confused as to how you continuously say that I am misrepresenting this man when I am only presenting facts.. as you are yourself.

You're presenting facts?!?

My opponent seems to be under the impression that misconstruing Santa's well documented history of goodwill and generosity into some pyschopathic machination against all human kind is factually based. I am curious as to what my opponent thinks of Ghandi and Mother Teresa...does he contend that they were in reality mass murderers based on the fact that they didn't get real American jobs and contribute monetarily to charity like every other celebrated philanthropist?

Santa Claus does some good things with his efforts. However, sitting on a sleigh and reaping all of the glory from the hard work of everyone else does not qualify someone for the highest office there is.

I find that my opponent is contradictory here. He has stated profusley his 'facts' (-cough-) regarding Santa's danger to human life and then calmly ignores his previous vehement contentions in favor of painting another picture - that Santa is merely lazy and a glory hog.

I will take that to mean that my opponent has quietly conceded his position that Santa should be tried for gross crimes against humanity.

Obama is a man who has mobilized millions and inspired a country to stand up for what is right.

-Snip-

The impact of Obama extends far beyond the borders of the United States.

My opponent says this as if it isn't obvious. But I would like to remind the reader that Santa has mobilized many millions more and his influence has garnered him annual attention that has evolved beyond his simple beginnings. He is now an international icon that has inspired generations upon generations of humans of all nationalities to look to their neighbor and find seasonal cheer. His Presidency would undoubtedly inspire a more year round attention to this seemingly fundamental trait worldwide; indeed his already prolific attention to international affairs would only benefit the human population were he to man the helm of the most powerful (currently) nation in the world.

Not so much a novelty as the intervention into a harried international scene where he has been positioned for centuries.

From my opponent's opening statement
During a time where the economy is crashing all around us, we need somebody at the helm who can show restraint.

My opponent earlier posted as to Santa's influence on the economy. The following shows that Santa is indeed aware of the situation and is aiding in talks to help solve the current toy industries crisis.

This legislation had emerged Monday as a behind-the-scenes compromise deal between majority Democrats and the White House. Their joint statement about the dangers of rising joblessness among elves and humans alike initially helped reverse lost momentum for the toy industry bailout.

-Snip-

Little Mary Sunshine, spokesperson for the United Toymakers Guild, told reporters at the North Pole this morning that Santa Claus was unavailable for comment because he was busy determining how snow in New Orleans will effect his holiday schedule. She said that Santa has complete faith Congress will "do the right thing" in time for his annual deliveries on the eve of December 25.

"Santa is making a list of senators and checking it twice," Miss Sunshine said. "He's going to find out who's naughty and nice."

Senators who vote against the toy bailout will find something much worse than "clean coal" in their stockings this year, she hinted.[1]

The above link refutes many of my opponents absurd accusations. Santa is not only proactive in his duties (refuting my opponents accusation of laziness and glory hogdom) but is well versed in the current economic crisis (refuting my opponent's accusation of ignorance on U.S. policies). Indeed, the economic crisis is recognized by everyone, including Santa. And his influence towards the Senate ("much worse than clean coal...") indicates that he has political savvy.

SQ#1: Does Santa's obvious attention to weather conditions of the geographical terrain he has to cover negate his sincere dedication to the American population?

Socratic Questions:

SQ#1 - Can you provide a birth certificate for Santa Claus?

No, I cannot. Santa was born prior to record keeping practices of the Modern world and as such cannot be held to such a standard. I would also like to remind my opponent that winning an election is not centralized on the proffering of a valid birth certificate, as the Obama's victory over McCain has demonstrated, in the form of a very large contention on the validity of Obama's Birth Certificate, even after his election victory, has demonstrated.

SQ#2 - 1. How do you justify the countless children who receive nothing from Santa Claus at Christmas and depend on charitable organizations to provide their Christmas?

I justify it as an obvious humanitarian effort from Santa in that he has recognized that poverty stricken children need more than a day out of the year for hope and cheer. Santa has delegated these responsibilities intentionally to enrich the unfortunate children's faith in their common man everyday...which is a far more valuable gift than a mere object.

SQ#3 - What specific policy of Santa Claus do you view as superior to that of Barack Obama?

I cannot answer that question as it would be an effort at guessing Santa's specific stance on any given issue. He hasn't made himself a political entity and as such has not stipulated his personal position on the modern day issues, though I would venture a guess that Santa would not favor Isael over Iran in that he is a pacifist by nature.

SQ#4 - What is Santa Claus' political affiliation?

As Santa is an international entity, I would say that Santa is an independant.

SQ#5 - Would you speculate who you feel Santa Claus would select as his running mate?

Nope.

Now let us take a minute to look at a crowd of people who showed up to see what they hoped is Santa Claus.

My opponent provided an image towards the crowd drawing power of Santa in contrast to Obama. The reader should realize that Obama has been a national force for less than two years, less than that even. Santa has centuries of experience but that does not detract from his influence as demonstrated here...



...and clearly Santa has his supporters. As well, I think the image above showing Obama's crowd is photoshopped. Debate rule constraints prevent me from showing commissioning an ATS expert to showcase this to its fullest.

Am I not altruistic, noble and "good"? Yet, Santa Claus would leave me without a Christmas present because I didn't fit his standard?

As I have shown above with Santa's attention to weather details, Santa has an eye for detail. Your scenario would have been recognized and alloted for, though I will state that with a modicum of certainty as your "scenario" is without detail...

Santa Claus reads his list and checks it twice but he NEVER takes the time to come out and meet the people that he checks off his list.

SQ#2: How do you suppose Santa allocates individuals into the categories of 'naughty and nice'?

I seriously doubt that through his years of experience in this regard that the attribution is arbritary...

No, I'd like to reserve this for someone who will take the time to follow up on the naughty and see what happened and then see if we can help them out.

And Obama has the capacity to visit every instance of 'naughty or nice' contention? Indeed, Obama is only human while Santa is much more than that. While Santa's techniques are unknown, it can be stated with absolute certainty that Obama cannot come close to attending to individual cases. This can easily be ascertained by the use of rhetoric Obama has utilized in the speeches that underlined his journey to the White House.

My opponent is now calling the voting of Santa into Office as a novelty, which is a misrepresentation of my position. Santa is a well known name that has influenced generations of people. His influence towards the encouragement of goodwill towards mankind from all is no mere novelty, rather it is a tribute to a dedicated soul for a better tomorrow.

Rather than rallying around a half beated concept turned modern slogan (which is a tribute to Obama's campaign manager/advisors) of "Change", Santa has an already established track record of positive encouragement for all of mankind.

Rather than "Change", should we not focus on the people who have embodied this notion for centuries? The answer is yes...we should take notice of what has been happening for years (Santa's message of goodwill) and reintegrate that into our basterdized concept of ruling government.

Santa was the change Obama speaks of and would have laughed at the trite rhetoric of Obama's campaign as he has emodied it for centuries.

SQ#3: What specific policy of Obama's do you view as superior to Santa's projected and inferred stance on humanity?

SQ#4: If blue is your favorite color, does that not reflect upon an inherent bias to Christmas and Santa by association seeing as Christmas colors are traditionally red and green?

SQ#5: What is your favorite animal?

I am requesting my 24 hour extension.

I apologize to my opponent for the delay in response, however I am truly grateful for his generosity. Thank you.



What we have in front of us is a lot of opinions based on facts. We see an issue in front of us and my opponent and I have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly the issue is. I view Santa Claus as a cruel elitist who leaves children in the cold on Christmas, without having taken a second to contact them and let them know they've been delegated to the naughty list. I believe a phone call should be in order. My opponent disagrees. Thus an issue before us where we come to separate conclusions.

Let us now take a second to consider a fact that is irrefutable. A fact that can be presented and perceived in only one way.

As Santa is an international entity, I would say that Santa is an independant.

2008 Presidential Election Results

Ralph Nader, this year's current independent candidate, received less than 700,000 votes. Considering over 125,000,000 million votes were cast, receiving what Nader did made up for approximately 1% of the vote.

Despite the difficulty in wining the presidency, independent and third-party candidates often bring attention to their most prominent issues. They can also affect the outcome between major-party candidates.

www.history.com...

"They can also affect the outcome between major-party candidates"

It is an accepted fact that independent candidates for the President of the United States are not a serious threat to actually win it. While they can create a ripple in the water, the effects of the ripple are minimal and short lived.

So in the history of all American Presidential elections, any independent nominee has never come close to actually winning it. Roosevelt once polled over 25% of the popular vote, however was never really a contender to win the election. Other than that, there are very few exceptions of an independent candidate polling over 1,000,000 votes.

Like these past presidential nominees of the same bill, they bring attention to one issue. Santa Claus as a novelty in any election would bring attention to what? Providing toys to kids around the world? I believe the American public, even if they are as uninformed as my opponent reminds us and hopes, would expect something a little more tangible than a new Barbie doll or the latest G.I. Joe.

I will now answer my opponents Socratic questions.

SQ#1: Does Santa's obvious attention to weather conditions of the geographical terrain he has to cover negate his sincere dedication to the American population?

No. The terrain he must cover is absolutely dreadful and I can not begin to imagine the hardships that the reindeer, elves and Mrs Claus must endure. However, it is his choice to reside there and his choice to make these people call the North Pole home. As it is a choice, it negates nothing and leaves many to wonder the motif of his choice of home. More on this later.

SQ#2: How do you suppose Santa allocates individuals into the categories of 'naughty and nice'?

If I were to be completely honest, I believe it is either by pure chance (a coin toss possibly) or he has his elves do it. I suspect if elves were forced to do this, it would be an ideal position that elves would sought. Given Santa Claus' lack of contribution to the process, I would be surprised if he does this. And as stated, if he actually does do this.. I believe it is only by chance.

SQ#3: What specific policy of Obama's do you view as superior to Santa's projected and inferred stance on humanity?

Since you were unwilling to project or infer any stance of Santa, how can I possibly determine superiority in an Obama policy when contrasted with an unknown? I'm a little disappointed with my opponents tendency to not actually answer the questions and even more taken back that he would ask the same question in return after not answering it himself.

I will offer a response though.

Obama's tax plan will provide relief to the middle class who is feeling the crunch during these economic times. Those that Santa Claus leaves out in the cold, and as my opponent informs us that these families are intentionally delegated to charitable organizations, typically wind up with a Christmas with little under the tree. Obama is extending his arm and trying to help these people, while Santa Claus doesn't make the time nor effort to provide anything tangible to these children. He delegates to an underfunded, undermanned program that will do very little for these children.

Obama cares about those that Santa does not.

SQ#4: If blue is your favorite color, does that not reflect upon an inherent bias to Christmas and Santa by association seeing as Christmas colors are traditionally red and green?

No, it doesn't. My favorite color is contrived from a sports team that I follow and thus was decided upon with no ill content towards the holiday of Christmas. If my favorite food were potatoes, it doesn't imply I don't like meat. Because my favorite color doesn't fall into the red and green of Christmas, it doesn't imply that I don't like Christmas.

If these pseudo-psychological gimmicks are what my opponent is relying on to convince our reader that Santa Claus is a realistic candidate in a Presidential election, then I feel for his supporters.

SQ#5: What is your favorite animal?

Reindeer.

Now go Freudian on me and let me know what my deepest and darkest thoughts were.



I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent. I do hope that my opponent makes an effort to answer these questions and will do so honestly.

SQ#1 - Did you vote in this year's election and if so, who did you vote for?
SQ#2 - Do you feel that Barack Obama was the best man for the job in the 2008 election?
SQ# 3 - What Presidential candidate in this years election reminds you most of Santa Claus? Please pick one.
SQ#4 - Since you emphasize how recognizable Santa Claus is... will he wear his red suit on a daily basis as President of the United States?
SQ#5 - If Santa Claus is President of the United States and thus holding down a separate full-time job, who will provide gifts to the specific population that he provides? Will he rely heavier on charitable organizations?



Here is the difference in Barack Obama and Santa Claus when considering the crowds that turn out to see either or. And this difference is exactly why Santa Claus is a novelty and nothing more.

When voters showed up at an Obama rally this past summer, they showed up to hear him speak. They stood in crowds of hundreds of thousands of people to hear a man speak who they feel can make the world a better place. They wanted the voice of this man to hit their ears and be comforted with the fact that there is a man out there who is willing to fight for the change that America needs. People went to hear that America is capable of change and can be a better place. People went to be inspired.

Now when people go to see Santa Claus, what do they do? They go to see Santa Claus. They do not go to hear him speak or listen to him. People go to simply see him. Sometimes they fork over a few of their hard earned dollars to sit on his lap and talk to him about what they want. Nowhere in this exchange does Santa offer a voice of reason to them and inspire them. No, he takes their money for a cheap picture and tells them whatever it is they want to hear. He makes children and parents, who can not afford it, pay to have a picture taken and to talk to him. I mean, it is ridiculous.

Obama greets hundreds of thousands of people and stops to shake hands and take pictures with as many as he can, all without asking for a penny in return.

This is why Obama is and was a serious contender for the President of the United States. And this is why Santa Claus is a novelty and would not be a serious contender.

On one final note of my response, I will clarify that I have conceded nothing in this debate and I do believe Santa Claus should be brought up on manslaughter charges or quite possibly even murder. This debate is a process and I am following its' path. Because I have spent my time discussing other aspects of this debate implies nothing of the sort with concession. My opponents intent to goad me in other directions is futile.

This is an issue that will be discussed thoroughly and we will also examine the motif behind Santa Claus' choice of the North Pole as a home.

It is all coming down the pipe and the truth will be known to all very soon.

I will be using my extension...

My opponent is indeed correct when he says,

A fact that can be presented and perceived in only one way.

However, my opponent is presenting a fact, that an independent has yet to win the Presidential election, and contorting it to indicate that an independent will never win the Presidency.

This, of course, is fallacious logic and as my opponent has demonstrated, Teddy Roosevelt did win about 27% of the popular vote. But do we remember Roosevelt more for his successful Independent campaign or for the fact that Teddy Roosevelt was President?

We recall him more for his Presidency...and there is no reason, despite historical trend that my opponent has cited (fallaciously), that Santa couldn't overcome this hurdle; indeed, if anyone can it would be Santa.
Afterall, an entity of mythological proportions has not yet attempted to run for the office of President in the United States. Everyone loves an underdog, and Santa is already beloved by millions.

SQ#1: Would Santa have a better chance at winning the Presidency, in your opinion, were he a member of a major political party?

SQ#2: Would Santa's status as an independent prevent him from obtaining a major Political Party representation (As with Theodore Roosevelt)?

Obama cares about those that Santa does not.

And this is the foundation of my opponent's entire argument; that Santa is a reprehensible individual and should be rought up for crimes against humanity. He has promised throughout the course of this debate that we would clearly show why, but has yet to bring anything but 'an interpretation', which thus far has been a misconstruing of available information. I applaud my opponents' willingness to continue beating Santa up rhetorically, as it really seems the best way to decry an infallible icon of our days but must wonder if millions of Americans agree with him.

Obama's tax plan will provide relief to the middle class who is feeling the crunch during these economic times.

I have to ask my opponent what affiliations Obama as in the political world. You see, Obama's 'tax reform' is nothing but a thinly placed together piece of rhetoric that is meant to appeal to the positive thinking (and naive) public. Where is Obama's loyalty, especially in light of his recent appointment of Governer Vilsack to the office of Secretary of Agriculture?[1]

You see, in order for any of our candidates to become full fledged Republican or Democratic nominees they must have funding, funding for advertisement during the campaign.

SQ#3: Is Obama completly immune from corporate manipulation?

My opponent has already denigrated Santa's good name, especially with some hardcore accusations - but seems to turn a blind eye at Obama's obvious dealings with the corporate/political elite in what can only be viewed as 'a contract with the devil'.

James A. Johnson is the person selected by Obama to head his Vice-Presidential Search Committee. The main stream media hasn't told you much about Johnson other than the fact that he lead John Kerry's VP search committee.

Because James A. Johnson is a Vice-Chairman of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund and merchant bank, and a business partner of George Soros. Johnson also was the chairman of investment house Lehman Brothers. Johnson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. [2]

So Obama, it is evident, is not without the potential for corruption.

SQ#4: Who is more popular in the public's eye - Santa or Obama?

Santa, on the other hand, seems to be without this corporate corruption as he is a self-less individual who's only motivation is to make families happy one day out of the year in an effort to encourage this good will to be practiced year round. I dare say that Santa's self-less attitude would work wonders as a negotiator and example for conflict ravaged regions of our world.

In Response To My Socratic Question #5
Reindeer.

I submit to the reader that my opponent, in seeing my innocent question regarding his Christmas loyalties based on his favorite colour of blue, has gotten overly suspicious of my intentions with my innocent questions. As such, he predictably answered "Reindeer" to give the impression that he is pro Christmas. I submit that such anticipation by my opponent is indicative of intentional misrepresentation and as such, his entire argument is suspect - how can we trust the position of an individual who is willing to lie as to which is favorite type of animal is?

We can't and I find that I am disappointed in my opponent's half hearted efforts to jerk the readership around.

SQ#1 - Did you vote in this year's election and if so, who did you vote for?

I sense that my opponent is hoping that I answer "Obama" and is likely expecting me to rationalize this choice as the only choice I had, sans Santa. He is, however, going to be disappointed.

I Didn't Vote.

Though I sure would have placed my vote for Santa were he an available candidate.

SQ#2 - Do you feel that Barack Obama was the best man for the job in the 2008 election?

No. I felt that there were many independants that were better suited for the job as their campaigns seemed to care more about the issues rather than ideological campaign slogans.

SQ# 3 - What Presidential candidate in this years election reminds you most of Santa Claus? Please pick one.

To be honest, none of the candidates reminded me of Santa and I can't even go out on a limb and rationalize character traits in order to provide an answer to this question.

Santa is iconic and as such is incomparable.

SQ#4 - Since you emphasize how recognizable Santa Claus is... will he wear his red suit on a daily basis as President of the United States?

I highly doubt it; the red suit is specific to the Holidays. He may wear variations of the suit but only as a visual reminder of the good that is embodied by the costume.

SQ#5 - If Santa Claus is President of the United States and thus holding down a separate full-time job, who will provide gifts to the specific population that he provides? Will he rely heavier on charitable organizations?

Santa would likely continue on in his original capacity. I don't see where being President would prevent this course of action.

SQ#5: Do you despise everything that Santa stands for when you accuse him of manslaughter and does your opinion reflect that of the nation?


In summation, I would like to make it clear that Obama won the election because of word of mouth and because he took advantage of the public's current distrust towards the Republican Party. A charismatic Democrat was destined to win this election (for the lack of a viable Independent) and his victory is not so much an indicator of his honesty and his 'looking out' for the lower classes, rather a combination of some heavey hitting financial backers and the Republican farce that is/was Bush. Obama played the political games and was rewarded for it.

But in a truthful expression of the need for change, Santa would have been a more viable candidate and President. He is incorruptible and the proof is in the centuries of dedicated service that has resulted in many imitators (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) and many happy mornings for individuals all ver the world and all over history.

Obama does not have this track record.

And the voters do respond to a name brand so to speak. And Santa is the biggest name brand of them all.
I implore the readers to look beyond the smear campaign that my opponent has so dedicated himself to as there just is no evidence to support malicious intent in someone who has dedicated centuries to the expression of good will.

I would like to thank my opponent, chissler, for a well thought out debate, Semperfortis for being the inimitable Semperfortis and the readers...whom I wish a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year...

Note:

Fighter Chissler is under no obligation to asnswer the Socratic Questions proposed in Fighter MemoryShocks Closing Post as per the rules.

Thank You

Semper

This has been a great debate on a topic that I believe my opponent and I have had much to chew on. But I believe it to be a simple debate on a very basic issue.

My opponent defends a man who has done good in his time, however has been offered the benefit of not being thoroughly investigated for his efforts. I have investigated this man and I am suspect of the private doings at the North pole. If I were to turn a blind eye to the countless border-line behaviors of Santa Claus, I too would likely stand and applaud him with blind faith. However, blind faith is ignorance. Mankind's love for Santa Claus is that of ignorance. It is because we do not stand and ask questions, we do not look further into what it is that he actually does and we just take it at face value that a few kids might get a toy once a year.

In a time where the world lives in fear, would a man who receives money for young children sitting on his lap really survive the intense media coverage of a presidential election? I believe he would not. I believe Santa Claus would crack under the microscope and I defend this belief by his unwillingness to speak in person or to show himself. I believe that Santa Claus is anti-social and has a fear being in public. Presidential debates would be the end of him, he would never survive the public appearances and speeches or the nationally televised interviews he would be expected to provide.

Two words: Sarah Palin.

A good looking woman who mobilized the core of the Conservative party. However, was unprepared for the attention and information that was going to be presented. When Sarah Palin went on-air and tried to respond to the questions that we expect our world leaders to respond to, she became the punch line for every late night television show. Even to this day in the aftermath of the election, she remains a punch line and she is scrambling to recover her image in hopes of a future run for the presidency. The point I am making here is that Sarah Palin was unprepared and it was obvious. The kicker here is that Sarah Palin has plenty more experience than Santa Claus and yet she was mocked by all. If this is the treatment that a good looking woman with a disabled child and also a son in Iraq is receiving, do we really expect Santa Claus to get a free ride?

Not a chance.

As I've said time and time again, Santa Claus is a novelty and nothing more. America needs better and they would never be so foolish to elect such a man.

On a few occasions in this debate, I have alluded to a concern over Santa Claus' choice of home. Why is it that a man who does so much and has to travel so far makes things difficult for himself by living in such an environment? The North Pole endures some of the harshest weathers on earth, yet this man decides to live there with his wive and elves? Why? Why would he make himself travel that much farther, when he already has to travel around the world?

Santa Claus is a private man who does not want to be disturbed, wants nobody knowing his business and wants nobody asking questions or seeing into his work shop. He is a man who has something to hide. And a man who has something to hide is not someone who is going to be elected President of the United States.

My opponent defends the man by saying he is good and does good things, however never really gets into the meat of my argument and defends the specifics. The defense of everything that I've raised is simply that he is a good man.

I once watched a television show where grown men traveled great distances to see children. It was called "To Catch a Predator".

I won't comment further on this, however I will say that it is time to begin to ask questions.

Now through this debate I have also made the comment that I believe Santa Claus should be arraigned on criminal charges. I ask that our readers consider the next to instances of violence related to anxious shoppers this holiday season.

Shots fired at Toys R Us in Palm Desert; 2 Dead

Black Friday gets bloody: Long Island Wal-Mart clerk trampled in shopper stampede

In both instances, people were killed. In the latter of the two, an innocent Wal-Mart clerk was trampled to death. Now I ask our readers, what was in these shoppers minds that resulted in them acting like this? It is in my opinion that these people knew that Santa Claus was not going to be bringing their children a gift this year, just as he had not in past years, and that the anxiousness and stress that this information caused resulted in them acting so immoral and gang-like.

Innocent people are being killed over the holidays due to shopping and this shopping is only occurring because Santa Claus is delegating his responsibility to others. Those that he fails to provide for wind up acting in such a manner that people are losing their lives.

This is not a cut and dry case, however I do feel that some of the blood of these innocent victims is on the hands of Santa Claus.

When he hears of these stories, does he comment? Does he express his remorse? No, he ignores it because he does not care. He has already delegated these people to the naughty list and has never looked back.

All of these questions will be asked in a president election and Santa Claus, as history dictates, will not be prepared to respond. Image is important and Obama's emphasis on his image is second to none. When you think of Obama on stage giving a speech to the masses, I ask our readers to think of who looks more "Presidential". Does Santa Claus in his great big red jump suit look more Presidential, or does Obama?

I believe Obama does and I believe he is the better man for the job.

If Santa Claus ran in a Presidential election, he would lose to Obama. Hell, he would lose to Sarah Palin! That says a lot.

Thank you.

Now off to the judges

Two judgments are in and that is enough as they are both in agreement...

After reading the debate several times, I have reached a tough decision. Both fighters presented very strong arguments and made their cases very eloquently.

Chissler, while making a very good case, seemed to focus more on attacking Santa rather than comparing and contrasting him to Obama. However, when he did compare and contrast the two, his points were very well received and hit home quite nicely.

MemoryShock started out strong by pounding on the debate topic but seemed to fall into Chissler's hands a couple of posts in. He stayed the course though and stuck to his guns.

In the end, I have to award this debate to MemoryShock, as I feel he presented the most compelling argument throughout the entire debate.

Congratulations to both fighters for a very hard fought and entertaining debate.

It is very obvious that both of these fighters are very experienced and well-versed in the use of logic, rhetoric, rebuttals, and persuasion. As I read this debate I kept changing my mind back and forth, and it was very difficult to make a decision.

Both fighters took a position and stuck with it. Both effectively rebutted each other’s points and rebuttals. Both used their Socratic questions cleverly and dealt cleverly with the questions put to them by their opponent. Both used supporting evidence and “facts” well, and both made their case confidently and persuasively.

In the end, I’ll award the win to MemoryShock by a very, very slim margin for two reasons:

1) I don’t think that Chissler was quite 100% at refuting MemoryShock’s argument that the American voter pays more attention to public image and familiarity than issues and facts.

2) After being maneuvered into declaring Santa an independent, MS's comeback rebuttal to "an independent can't win" was outstanding.

Upon such tiny things must a decision rest when two skilled fighters go head to head and produce such an excellently argued debate.

MemoryShock is the WINNER!!!!

Congratulations to both Fighters, this was an excellent debate.

Semper

Even in defeat, this was the most fun and my favorite debate that I've ever had. I thank Mem for being a great opponent and semper for coming up with the best topic I think we could have been offered.

Congrats on your win!

Congratulations on a well fought debate, chissler...

I too had a great amount of fun with this debate...

Well done, both of you. Very entertaining to read and really quite spot on. The topic was also a stroke of genius, that allowed for a balanced debate