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

My 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 of Nazarath certainly did present self-sufficiency as a virtuous characteristic for us as humans to have. Through his parables Jesus Christ attempts convey to his followers how he believes that people should conduct themselves. One of his Parables is that of the Ten Talents. In this story a master scorns one of his servants for not investing the talents bestowed to him as his other servants have. The message of this parable is clear; humans are, according to Christian philosophy, meant to be industrious and self-sufficient and when we refuse this calling we anger God. This message of the importance of industriousness and self-sufficiency is reiterated by Ephesians 4:28, as well Proverbs 21:25-26, which decries indolence. Republican reforms to public social safety nets are perfectly in line with this aspect of Christian philosophy; by placing work requirements on welfare and ending its status as an entitlement program, at least on a federal level, those who were on the government dole, but were able to provide for themselves, were provided with a greater incentive to conform to this aspect of Christian philosophy. Ephesians 4:28 instructs us to turn thieves into remunerative members of society. While my opponent reacted harshly to me drawing a comparison between thieves, and those who take advantage of welfare, the similarities are considerable enough that this verse is applicable.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 sacrificeThis statement is unfair; Republicans do not believe that we should wash our hands of the poor, but that private charity is better suited to handle social ills than the government is. My opponent has offered up no reason as to why the government is better suited to handle the administration of welfare programs, beyond that unsubstantiated assertion that “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.” Seeing as my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate I don’t believe that it is unreasonable to ask him to provide such proof, and seeing as he has not, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty which approach would best help the poor. Thus, it is unfair to claim that the Democratic party does a better job in helping the poor than the Republican Party does. 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 Democratic party. I would like to point out that in 2006 President Bush, a Republican president, made proposals for immigration reform that were very similar to those now being offered up by the Democrats now in 2012 [1]. And again I would like to remind everyone that both of these parties are trying to prevent people from escaping their less prosperous countries and entering into the United States; this is hardly an action that could be considered loving your neighbour. I would also like to point out that many members of the Republican party are pushing for legislation similar to that of the DREAM act.[2] All in all, I would say that the issue of border security is a wash, and cannot be used to justify the claim that the Democrats do a better job of loving their neighbours. On the issue of judgment, I feel as though I need only reiterate the points that I made earlier on in this debate: Matthew 5:17 is a statement by Jesus which essentially reestablishes that the laws of the Old Testament are not null and void, but are still in effect. There is 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. Conclusion:My opponent hasn't upheld the burden of proof that was place upon him by taking the affirmative position in this debate.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://www.cbsnews.com...