The Instigator
TAA
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Jesus was a conservative.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,639 times Debate No: 23456
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

TAA

Pro

He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He feed the hungry without food stamps. He was killed by a liberal court. (Herman Cain)
1dustpelt

Con

"He helped the poor without one government program."
Liberals can do that.

"He healed the sick without a government health care system."
Liberals can do that.

"He feed the hungry without food stamps."
Liberals can do that.

"He was killed by a liberal court."
No, he was killed by a ultra-conservative extremist court. Exactly the opposite.

Why Jesus was not conservative


Contention 1: He was against the conservative priests
Several times throughout the Bible he preached against the conservative priests.

Vote CON as PRO made no good arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Yes the court was conservative.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Jesus was against tax collectors

The court was not conservative

Never mind, dustpelt your arguments are false. :P
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
@Ahmed, but unfortunately, we have a new vBomber ultra conservative fascist on the block. EVERYONE RUN AWAY!
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
LK, liberal does not mean "more government intervention".
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
Wow these are free wins. You're just increasing your rank....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted everything perfectly. I lolled
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - tied. Spelling and grammar - Pro said, "He feed the hungry..." Arguments - Con demonstrated the fatal flaw with all of Pro's arguments: that the canons of human decency function regardless of liberal or conservative political affiliation; therefore, rendering Pro's arguments impotent. Sources - Pro used the most reliable and reputable source known throughout the land: the rambling of a pizza salesman, Herman Cain.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's arguments prevailed. However, both arguments sucked though. Just because "liberals can do that" doesn't make Jesus liberal (although I believe he was).
Vote Placed by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: only voting to counter lordknuckle.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were superior. Most of Pro's ideas were nonunique, and Con demonstrated that Jesus was against the conservative Jewish priests. Adding points to counter LK. Please counter 2 more points of LK's vote.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
TAA1dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: It's rather axiomatic in the sense of when talking about a liberal, government intervention is presumed. TAA showed that he did things without government intervention and actually had a source. Con's argument was completely unsubstantiated and lacking from the mainstream definition of "liberal," which was obvious by the opening post. COUNTER VOTE BOMB CONTRA- +3 POINTS TO TAA