The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Resolved: Jesus Preached Tolerance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,333 times Debate No: 20750
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




Rd 1: Acceptance
Rd 2: Initial Arguments
Rd 3: Rebuttal, Supporting Arguments
Rd 4: Final Rebuttal, Closing Statements (no new arguments)

tol·er·ance   [1]
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Preach [2]

(used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.

I am willing to stipulate that any red letter version of the Bible accurately represents the words of Jesus. I will not get into semantic arguments based on possible translation errors.



I accept. Thank you for picking such a great topic.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for taking up this challenge. I know that it can be difficult objectively arguing a position about which one feels passionately, but I look forward to a reasoned discussion about this subject.

It is important to note the distinction between the two statements, "Chritianity is a tolerant religion" and, "Jesus preached tolerance." There are so many flavors of Christianity I think it is fair to say that they represent different interpretations of the Bible. Since Paul was one of the most prolific writers in the New Testament, having written thirteen of the thirty-nine books, much of the interpretation of what Christianity is can be directly linked to the interpretation that the apostle Paul outlines in his letters. Paul was not a tolerant person. Having changed his path late in life, he was very zealous in outlining what he thought the course of the church should be. Although it is understood that he perceived his believes to be of divine inspiration, the facts remain that he never once met Jesus in the flesh, never once heard him preach, and never once asked Jesus what he meant.

So, though it can be said that Christianity (or at least some applications of Christianity) are not tolerant, and some will even boast that it is thus, it can not be said that Jesus preached intolerance based on the application of the people who say follow him. Instead, we must look to the words of the man himself, and for the purpose of this discussion I have stipulated that the red-letter editions of bibles accurately represent the words of Jesus.

A good test of tolerance[1] is to determine whether a person can stand for something to happen different than it has always been done. The intolerant mind stands on a dogma that likely existed long before the person was able to form their own thought and now, with their reliance on dogma, the intolerant still have difficulty forming their own thoughts. The original purpose for the rule or procedure has been lost to posterity, but at the same time it has gained some mystical authority. Many of the rules and regulations in the Old Testament were, arguably, necessary when they were written, in order to ensure the survival of the tribe.

But when Jesus was confronted with these outdated laws[2] he rebuked the Pharisees for focusing on trivial things (like how to wash a pot, et al) and forgetting the important things. He said it wasn't what a person ate that made them unclean, but how they acted. And what is Jesus most central teaching about how we should behave? That we should love one and other, including our enemies. That we should take care of each other, even if we disagree[3].

Another test of tolerance [1] is whether a person has a permissive attitude towards others or prefers to force them into a lifesyle 'for their own good.' The intolerant seem to think it is their venue to stop others from living in a way that does not live up to their dogma, but that is not what Jesus said. Jesus taught that we were not meant to shun or despise others or to persecute them for their actions. Even if their actions negatively affected us we were to forgive them without resistance[4] and love them anyway. Jesus specifically said that we were to love those with whom we disagreed or that who had wronged us, because "Even a bad man loves his friends."[5]

Forcefully proclaiming how the world should act based on their interpretation of the Bible is not in accordance with the words of Jesus. One of the most egregious displays of intolerance, picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers because they do not agree with the lifestyles that others choose, is most definitely not in accordance with Jesus' words. This type of grandstanding is anathema to Jesus, based on his words. He said that acting out in public like that, proclaiming one's faith in public or declaring that one represents the moral authority of God, is hypocritical. He said that people who do that have their reward[6].

To instead store up reward in heaven, apostles are charged to be like the lillies of the field[7] meaning roughly they should not sweat the small stuff. God will take care of it. It is not the place of man to judge man, but rather to focus on being the best person one can be. According to Jesus, the energy it takes to be intolerant of others takes away from the energy one should be using to focus on being a better person[8].

Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.” ~George Bernard Shaw

[1] Definition of tolerance from round one.
[2] Mark 7
[3] Luke 10:30-37
[4] Matthew 5:39-42
[5] Matthew 5:44-48
[6] Mathew 6:5-8
[7] Matthew 7:3-5


My Initial Arguments: Jesus did not preach tolerance. Below are all the commands of Christ. I have unpacked the commands that often get misquoted for the context of tolerance-

    • Repent—Matthew 4:17

    • Follow Me—Matthew 4:19

    • Rejoice—Matthew 5:12

    • Let Your Light Shine—Matthew 5:16

    • Honor God’s Law—Matthew 5:17–18

    • Be Reconciled—Matthew 5:24–25

    • Do Not Commit Adultery—Matthew 5:29–30

    • Keep Your Word—Matthew 5:37

    • Go the Second Mile—Matthew 5:38–42

    • Love Your Enemies—Matthew 5:44 (Does not teach tolerance, but love. They are still an enemy.)

    • Be Perfect—Matthew 5:48

    • Practice Secret Disciplines—Matthew 6:1–18

    • Lay Up Treasures—Matthew 6:19–21

    • Seek God’s Kingdom—Matthew 6:33

    • Judge Not—Matthew 7:1 (Does not teach Tolerance, but humility. See Romans 2)

    • Do Not Cast Pearls—Matthew 7:6 ( The opposite of tolerance. Keep what is holy as holy. Don't just give it to the faithless (referd to as swine and dogs).)

    • Ask, Seek, and Knock—Matthew 7:7–8

    • Do Unto Others—Matthew 7:12 (Not tolerance. Patience and temperance.
      Tolerance teaches that I leave you alone. Patience teaches that I persue out of love and mercy
      for as long as it takes.)

    • Choose the Narrow Way—Matthew 7:13–14

    • Beware of False Prophets—Matthew 7:15

    • Pray For Laborers—Matthew 9:38

    • Be Wise as Serpents—Matthew 10:16

    • Fear God, Not Man—Matthew 10:26

    • Hear God’s Voice—Matthew 11:15

    • Take My Yoke—Matthew 11:29

    • Honor Your Parents—Matthew 15:4

    • Beware of Leaven—Matthew 16:6

    • Deny Yourself—Luke 9:23

    • Despise Not Little Ones—Matthew 18:10 (Does not teach tolerance. Teaches patience for Christians who have fallen away from the faith.)

    • Go to Offenders—Matthew 18:15 (The opposite of tolerance.)

    • Beware of Covetousness—Luke 12:15

    • Forgive Offenders—Matthew 18:21–22

    • Honor Marriage—Matthew 19:6

    • Be a Servant—Matthew 20:26–28

    • Be a House of Prayer—Matthew 21:13

    • Ask in Faith—Matthew 21:21–22

    • Bring in the Poor—Luke 14:12–14

    • Render to Caesar—Matthew 22:19–21

    • Love the Lord—Matthew 22:37–38

    • Love Your Neighbor—Matthew 22:39

    • Await My Return—Matthew 24:42–44

    • Take, Eat, and Drink—Matthew 26:26–27

    • Be Born Again—John 3:7

    • Keep My Commandments—John 14:15

    • Watch and Pray—Matthew 26:41

    • Feed My Sheep—John 21:15–16

    • Baptize My Disciples—Matthew 28:19

    • Receive God’s Power—Luke 24:49

    • Make Disciples—Matthew 28:20 (The opposite of tolerance)

      My final point for this round of the debate:

      "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
      35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

Debate Round No. 2


I must say I am a little non-plussed by my opponents methodology. He has not made any arguments whatsoever to support his position. He made an assertion, and nothing more. He did not make an argument and use sources to support his argument.

I have shown how Jesus was undogmatic, unbigotted, and fair. These are all traits straight from the definition of tolerance[1]. I have even shown how Jesus reproached those who made a spectacle of their faith rather than simply leading by example. My opponent has handed me the Bible and told me to read it for myself.

I have, and that is why I challenged him to this debate.

The words of the Old Testament have been used to justify so many horrendous acts throughout the ages it staggers the mind. It is one of the most intolerant, sexist books ever written, and anything from slavery to homophobia to genocide can be shown to be condoned by this book. If Jesus was intolerant he would not have had to have said a word. He could have just done what my opponent did: hand me a book and say, "What they said."

Jesus did not do that. He came to show people their hypocricy. He came to preach love and tolerance. This is not to say he condoned any of the behaviors that might be classified as sinful. Far from it, I am sure, but he also knew that you cannot force people from a path they have chosen. Punishing people, forcing people to change (or to at least act like they have changed), condeming people, all these things that supposedly Christian people do, Jesus never did. He loved everyone, especially those who my opponent would likely not tolerate.

Time and again Jesus preached a message of love and acceptance of others. He left the changing of their ways to them, he did not force change upon them. An intolerant man would have forced the change in behavior. An intolerant man would have let the woman be stoned, and that is why the pharisees tried to trick him with it. He preached a message of love, and yet the law of the Old Testament required the woman be killed. He would either be intolerant and lawful, or tolerant and unlawful. But Jesus was too smart for all of them. He pointed out their hypocricy. He mocked their foolish belief that they had the right to judge ANYONE except themselves.[1]

This attitude of deal with yourself and let others deal with themselves was certainly a message of tolerance. "Don't worry about them. Fix yourself"[2] The intolerant can be seen far and wide getting into everyones business but ignoring their own faults. This 'piety' is one thing, perhaps, of which Jesus was intolerant. He seemed to get almost upset at people for grandstanding.

Jesus was all about forgiveness. He knew that bitterness and ire will eat you up inside, and told his disciples to forgive. To forgive means to excuse for a fault or an offense, to pardon[3]. Forgiving is as permissive as an attitude can be towards another human being. If Jesus forgave you, any debt was cleared. It is not possible to forgive someone without being tolerant.

Jesus did not preach intolerance. He preached that there were two basic things that we needed to do:

Love god with all our hearts.
Love our neighbor as ourselves.

He did not qualify these statements. He did not say 'Love your neighbor if you agree with how they live'. He did not say, 'Love your neighbor but do your best to make them change'.

Jesus tolterated everybody and everything. He even tolerated his own execution. His heart was pure, and he did not need to prove his piety to anyone.

[1] John 8:7
[2] Mathew 7:5


Pro said:” I must say I am a little non-plussed by my opponents methodology. He has not made any arguments whatsoever to support his position.”

Answer: The correct term is nonplussed and I provided a list of reason why Christ did not preach tolerance. Each of those reasons came directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. I also could not form a rebuttal to
Pro’s introductory arguments because the rules prohibited this. Round two was initial argument only.

My argument is stated clearly in the 1st sentence, followed by no less than 50 axiomatic sources. I
highly urge Pro to research my sources before he makes any more assumptions. It is clear that Pro simply ignored the sources and dismissed them.

Pro said: “I have shown how Jesus was undogmatic, unbigotted, and fair.”

Answer: Incorrect on all three counts.

1.>Jesus was in fact not fair. If Jesus had been fair, he would have let us go to our judgment and receive our due punishment. Jesus was gracious, not fair.

2.>Jesus was a technically a bigot. Jesus gave clear instruction of whom he loved and whom he would judge. Jesus made no excuses for his judgment. He let you know in no uncertain terms, that he will be utterly intolerant of your belief or opinions if they are not rooted in Biblical orthodoxy (i.e. the teachings of Christ). See definition of bigot (we can obviously exclude racial bigotry).


Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA

noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed,belief, or opinion.


John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
but by me.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with
unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what
fellowship has light with darkness?

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father
who is in heaven.

2John 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide
in the teaching of Christ, does not have God.

2.>Jesus was 100% dogmatic - "None can come to the father except through me."
See definition:


Spelled[dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA.


an official system of
principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms:
doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.


a specific tenet or
doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the
Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms:
canon, law.


prescribed doctrine
proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of
resisting political dogma.


a settled or
established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity
in scientific observation. Synonyms:

I am sure everyone knows that Jesus did exactly what is described in this definition.

Pro argues that the old testament is a story of terror and injustice. I would partially agree.It does, however, serve a greater purpose.

I would like to respectfully point out that Pro is not informed enough to settle on his opinion. I would like to ask Pro a question. What is the purpose of the old testament? If Pro can answer that question correctly, then his opinion on the old testament may change.

I own a copy of the Tao Te Ching. However, I do not presume to understand everything within its
pages. I could easily say that it’s filled with as much wisdom as it is filled with incoherent garbage. It requires study to understand divine purpose. That’s why the Bible urges us to seek God. Don’t take my word for it.

I would also urge Pro not to confuse a broken Christian with a Bible. While I admit that the vast majority of
Christians profess something they do not understand, it has very little to do with God and his word. The biggest problems in Christianity today, are the poser-Christians who speak on behalf of God.

Pro said:” Jesus tolerated everybody and everything. He even tolerated his own execution.”

Answer: Very wrong.

-"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not
his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

-"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after
the which he received of us."

-And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple,
and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew
the tables."

Debate Round No. 3


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 fair
2. Jesus was techically a bigot
3. Jesus was dogmatic

1. 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]
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]
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 Statement
I 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.

[5] Matthew 19:14
[6] Mark 2:13-17
[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


Pro did not prove that Jesus was tolerant. He accepted the burden of proof by instigating the debate and claiming the resolution. Every single argument that my opponent brought forth was either presented out of context or it failed to be rooted in any Biblical orthodoxy.

I have provided multiple sources that directly speak on the subject of God's intolerance toward sinners. Pro has defined the son of God as some feminine, baby-kissing, hippy Jesus. There is not a single scripture that states:"Jesus came to tolerate his children." (Not literally, nor figuratively.)

Tolerance allows continuance in sin. Repentance requires a "turning away" from sin. Jesus preached repentance.

Pro does not understand the difference between love and tolerance. Nor mercy and tolerance. Nor temperance and tolerance. Nor patience and tolerance. Nor understanding and tolerance.

Pro has failed to dispute the Achilles heel of his argument:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

That verse teaches that a follower of Christ will be so different from the world, that he will be hated in his own house, by his own family. There is not a single measure of tolerance here. Jesus Christ demands his followers to be separated.

"Come out from among them."

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SkyNetTX 4 years ago
Oops, I've posted the wrong version :D

"Whoever does not hate his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not love his father and his mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother [...], but my true mother gave me life."
Posted by SkyNetTX 4 years ago
For Neonix:

You bring up this point to show that Jesus was preaching intolerance:
10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.[...]
I think you should make a comparative analysis of this fragment with the non-canonical gospels (Thomas' specifically) and you'll see that Jesus doesn't mean that He wants this to happen... it's simply what He anticipates.

You also bring this point:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not
his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

In the gospel of Thomas, this actually looks like:
"Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me."
A 180 degrees different meaning and actually one that makes total sense.
Posted by Knologist_Prime 6 years ago
To Pro:
Jesus did not tolerate actions and practices that went against what the Law of Moses stated.

For example: Not to use images or idols to worship God.

(Deuteronomy 7:25, 26) "The graven images of their gods you should burn in the fire. You must not desire the silver and the gold upon them, nor indeed take it for yourself, for fear you may be ensnared by it; for it is a thing detestable to Jehovah your God. (26) And you must not bring a detestable thing into your house and actually become a thing devoted to destruction like it. You should thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it, because it is something devoted to destruction."

(Isaiah 42:8) "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images."

That's just one example of NOT tolerating anything that goes against a commandment of God, and Jesus being born a Jew would have followed that.

Which is consistent with Greek scriptures and the teaching Jesus left with the disciples.
Do not tolerate idols or images in worshiping God.
(1 Thessalonians 1:9) "For they themselves keep reporting about the way we first entered in among YOU and how YOU turned to God from [YOUR] idols to slave for a living and true God."
(1 Corinthians 10:14) "Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry."

You seem to be ignoring that obvious bible verses that simply state things contrary to your preconceived idea, provided by Con. Jesus did not teach or preach tolerance.
Posted by Neonix 6 years ago
Congrats. Great debate.
Posted by Sisyphus67 6 years ago
No worries. I have noticed that no matter how much I might want otherwise, the sun takes as long as it will take to travel across the sky, so impatience is a waste of energy, to say the least. I try not to worry about things I cannot control so that I might focus on the things can.
Posted by Neonix 6 years ago
If I could beg for a little patience. I have been challenged by 5 people in 24 hours. I just posted my 3rd argument for the night, I'm mentally exhausted. I will provide my argument tomorrow. Sorry for the wait.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wnope 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While the Pro's argument did not change my opinion, the Con was so poorly organized and so poorly worded that he took what could have been a rather decisive win and trashed it.
Vote Placed by Ricky_Zahnd 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a bit shaky, as Pro didn't rsolve that jesus DIDNT teach INtolerance, but by the course of the debate it seems clear that he felt that was implied. In that case, Con did repeatedly provide quotes (as part of argument as well as outside) which demonstrate intolerance effectively, and which Pro did not justify.
Vote Placed by baggins 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Tolerance does not imply permissiveness towards evil or not exhorting the faithful to struggle in the path of God. Once this definition issues is resolved, Con did not really have a case. 4:1 to Pro.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate bled into a discussion over the meaning of tolerance, and in the end, I think Con confused tolerance with acceptance. Con made some good points about how Jesus was intolerant to sin, but Pro was clearly arguing that Jesus preached tolerance of people. I'm not 100 convinced by Pro, but on balance, he did a superior job in argumentation, grammar, and conduct.