The Democratic party exemplifies more of the Christian philosophy than the Republican party.

I'm going to go through my opponent's prior arguments systematically, and then offer up a few affirmative arguments of my own. I. Help the Sick and Feed the Poor What is important to understand about conservative ideology is that it doesn't just hold that social welfare programs should be administered by private charities, they believe that private charities are the more effective and efficient mode of delivery. The members of the Republican party genuinely believe that they are upholding the tenets of Christian philosophy when they call for the private administration of social welfare programs, as they believe that the poor and needy are best served when private charities are more empowered. If my opponent wants to show that the alternative is more in line with Christian philosophy, then they are going to have to come to the debate next round with some solid evidence that the public administration of social welfare programs is the superior mode of transportation. My opponent misunderstood my intention in quoting Ephesians; when the poor are dependent of public social safety nets, and they are taking the money of non consenting parties. You may say that the principle of the two scenarios are different, however realistically they are inseparable. The Bible claims that those whose dependent on the taking of money from others should be made more self reliant, which what the Republican party attempted to do through their reforms to welfare. II. My opponent has used a highly contested section of the Bible to justify their their counter contention that Jesus was not just concerned with hypocrisy in judgment. However, even if we accept that this portion of the Bible is legitimate, there is still an inherent contradiction in Jesus saying that we should forgo judgment, but that the rules of the old testament are still in effect, as the Old Testament instructs us to judge each other and tells us what the punishments for transgressions should be. It is unfair to fault the Republican party for following one of two contradictory messages contained within the bible. My opponent committed a fallacious appeal to nature in order to justify why homosexuality should not be considered immoral; my opponent claims that because homosexuality has a genetic component it is wrong for members of the Republican party to consider it immoral. Some people are genetically predisposed to murder and rape, and both these actions take place in nature, yet the overwhelming consensus is that in spite of this the act is still considered immoral. On the issue of immigration the Republican party has been pushing for greater control of, and security on the border of the United States and Mexico. If securing the border had been an issue that garnered bipartisan support the deportation and displacement of illegal immigrants may not be as grand in scale. And let us not forget, both of these parties have one end goal, to prevent more people than necessary from coming to the most economically prosperous nation on Earth. It has really only been Libertarians who have been calling for open border, and they have a greater proclivity to join the Republican party. III. The Republican party emphasizes the importance on individual economic self sufficiency; this is a principle outlined by both the passage from Ephesians, which I mentioned earlier, as well as the Parable of the ten talents, in which a servant is punished by his master for not taking advantage of the talent that his master bestowed to him. Sources I'll post them in the comments, I want to enjoy my Christmas.