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

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, then either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and that we just don't want to do it."~Stephen ColbertI. Social Welfare ProgramsWhether someone agrees with Christianity or is an atheist, it is very understood that their chore teachings are that of helping the poor, helping the sick, loving your neighbor, and to be non judgemental. Whether it is being upheld better in the Republican party or in the Democratic party is what is up for question. It's not whether or not one party 'thinks' they're doing what they're supposed to, it's if they actually are. What is clear in today's debate, is that people are dying of hunger everyday, people are dying from the lack of health care everyday, and people are being denied basic civil rights because of prejudice discrimination everyday. The Republican answer to this problem is to have less involvement on behalf of the government with social programs, and to further deny the civil rights of marriage to those who are homosexuals. Now, the government doing less is okay if the space is being filled by a private company who is willing and able to feed the poor or provide health care for the sick. Though there are some companies that try, none of them can handle hundreds of billions of dollars worth of health care and billions more for food. My opponent suggesting that I provide evidence for the fact that private companies can't afford to pay for the insurance of everyone who can't afford it or for everyone's food who can't afford it, is essentially like asking for evidence to support the idea that cars have wheels. Again, in and of itself, a government that is not Christian doesn't have to do these things. However, a government that has established itself as a Christian nation has that burden. II. Controversial issuesMy opponent's statement, "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," is not only irrelevant in this discussion, it's completely opposite of what Jesus of Nazareth actually instructed Christians to do. Jesus said things like, "If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back," (Luke 6:29-30). He also said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me," (Mathew 19:21).To be a Christian and pretend Jesus never wanted you to take care of the poor (unconditionally) is to join PETA with the belief that they allow animal sacrifice.My opponent then went on to address homosexuality by saying, "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." The problem here is that this is a false analogy. Murder and rape are both immoral in and of themselves and people who are born with murderous habits are called psychopaths. Homosexuality is only immoral based on religious belief and is as natural as heterosexuality in respects to the fact that it is present in over 1,500 species in nature.[1] Now, my opponent could say killing is natural as well, however killing is an immoral act in and of itself. No one has to tell you that killing is bad, we know that it is. It is not immoral for a human being to love another human being who they are predisposed to love, nor is it immoral for that person to wish to marry that other person. What's immoral is to tell two people who love each other that they can't ever marry because your improbable personal opinion of the origin of the cosmos says so and in fact their whole attraction is a disgusting abomination, when to them it comes as natural as your attraction for females. On the topic of border control, my opponent made the statement that, "...bboth of these parties have one end goal, to prevent more people than necessary from coming to the most economically prosperous nation on Earth." That is correct, they both do want to make at least some distinction on who can and cannot come into this country. However, one party is profoundly more emphatic about this than the other, and that would be the Republican party. My opponent keeps talking about Ephesians as if it upholds Christian morals, but the answer is that it doesn't. Christian teachings don't encompass the idea that only some people deserve help only when they really need it. Christian teachings say what was said above, to turn your other cheek if you're wronged, give ever time you're asked to, and to serve others unconditionally. III. ConclusionIn conclusion, I'd like to note that my opponent still has not proved that the Republican party has upheld more Christian teachings than the Democratic party. He hasn't set forth any aspect of Christianity that Republicans can uphold better than the Democrats at all. Jesus Christ was a socialist deity, who supported the redistribution of the loaves and fish of the wealthy. If that doesn't sound more like a Democrat than a Republican, I don't know what does. Happy Holidays DDO, and thanks to my opponent for an exciting debate![1]http://www.news-medical.net...