Resolved: Jesus Preached Tolerance

My opponent is clearly passionate about his position, and I appreciate the tenacity with which he holds to his position. However, among other things, I believe he is mistaken in his basic understanding of the difference between an argument and an assertion. Although he is correct iin his pedantic correction of my spelling. I will choose not to return the favor by nit-picking his grammar and spelling. An argument is a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion[1]. An asserion, which is what my opponent supplied, is a statement that is delivered forcefully or aggressively[2]. My opponents assertion was indeed followed by no less than 50 citations. However, I am not going to read the words of someone else to deduce my opponents argument. I leave that up to him to provide, and if he fails to do so, well, that is his choice. Citations are to support the argument; citations are not the argument. It is not my responsibility to research Cons sources. It is Cons responsibility to research those sources and weave the knowledge into a compelling argument. I absolutely ignored his citations, because there was no well reasoned argument which they supported. Imagine a verbal debate in which that approach was utilized. It is clear why it was inappropriate.My opponent states that I was incorrect in stating that Jesus showed himself to be undogmatic, unbigotted, and fair.Cons Arguments:1. Jesus was in fact not fair2. Jesus was techically a bigot3. Jesus was dogmaticContentions1. This is not a debate about the divinity of Jesus and Con is attempting to beg the question[12] by making a statement regarding Jesus' ability to save us from judgement. I will allow that Jesus was a great and inspired teacher, as he is regarded by the other two major religions. This in no way supercedes his ability to preach or his message, which is the subject of the debate.proph·et [3]n.1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.3. A predictor; a soothsayer.4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause.fair [4]adj.Free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.Jesus had a message to preach that would change the lives of anyone who would listen. He would preach this message to anyone, without prejudice, and chastised anyone who tried to keep people away from hearing him[5]. He showed no favoritism in choosing to whom he would speak, going so far as to eat and drink with publicans and sinners[6]. Everyone was welcome to listen to his words, because he was there to show ALL people a better path.Jesus did nothing to stop people from being who they were. He told them of a better way and left it up to them to follow his teachings. Compare this to the way the intolerant seek to force people onto the path they think correct with Blue Laws[7]. Finally, Jesus went against his self-interest in that he allowed himself to be killed rather than run[8]. Jesus was completely fair.2. Con wishes to ignore racial bigotry and cautions me not to confust broken Christians with a broken bible. This is the logical fallacy of special pleading[12]. I cannot ignore racial bigotry, however, SPECIFICALLY because of how much bigotry those broken 'Christians' sow in the world. The KKK claims to be a Christian orginization. The people are not 'broken Christians' as Con claims. They are not Christian at all. They do not follow the words of Jesus because Jesus was not a bigot. One of the most well known of Jesus' teachings (at least where I come from) is the parable of the Good Samaritan[9]. Jesus specifically used a Samritan in this example to show how anyone can follow his teachings. Samaritans were reviled by the Jews, and followed (to the Jewish mind) a false religion, but Jesus used a Samaritan to illustrate how people should act. "Go and do likewise", he said. Jesus was not discriminatory of anyone based on creed, color, or nation of origin. Jesus was not a bigot. This is not to say that he didn't think the woman was following the wrong path, but he was far from utterly intolerant. He told people they could inherit eternal life, in part, by being like a Samaritan, one of the most reviled groups of people known to the people to whom he was speaking. Those are the words of a person who recognizes the good in everyone, not a bigot.3. The Jews to whom Jesus preached were very dogmatic. They had rules for everything. This is straight from the definition of dogma that Con provided. An 'official' system of principles or tenets. And, as I showed in my initial argument, Jesus categorically ignored these tenets, because he said they were unimportant. Jesus was subverting many of the established opinions every day; dogma had driven people off the right track and he was there to show them how to get back on it. The dogma of the established religion was in the way of his teaching and pat of his teaching was that the dogma was wrong. Jesus was not dogmatic.Con's only supporting argument is logically fallacious (argumentum ad populum)[12]. My supporting arguments can be seen in my opening argument from round 2. Cons rebuttal of that argument is, "Everyone knows that is not true[10]." It is clear that this is an insufficient and argument as was his initial argument. Finally, Con attempts to invalidate my arguments with an abusive ad hominem circumstantial [12] attack. It is the most common fallacy in an election year, I suppose, but nevertheless unseemly. To say that I cannot possibly be right because I am not informed well enough is both insulting and arrogant. I urge my opponent to stay away from logical fallacies and insults in the future, both in this debate and others. I will accept my opponent's use of quotes without references in his final argument. It appears that he has enough respect for the level of my knowledge on the subject to feel that citations are not necessary. He is correct in that, but incorrect in his conclusions. I will agree that Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple was an act of intolerance, but it does not change the fact that he preached tolerance. It does not show him to be an intolerant person, it just shows him to be human. Closing StatementI have shown that my oponnents contentions are either fallacious or not sufficient to dismantle my initial argument, as well as provided additional support to my resolution. I have shown through Jesus' own words and actions that he was unbigotted, fair, and an opponent of established dogma and opinion. These are the very attributes of tolerance and therefor my resolution is confirmed.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] Matthew 19:14[6] Mark 2:13-17[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] Luke 22:39-46[9] Luke 10:25-37[10] Cons second argument, 10th paragraph from the bottom[11] Cons second argument, 8th paragraph from the bottom[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...