Will liberals / democrats go to the heaven of the big three religions ?
Debate Rounds (3)
Matthew 25:41 - Look up any version
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
4) Limit the rights of a select group of people.
Jesus loves everybody " but he loves me best. Kind of sits the wrong way with you, doesn't it? Well, it should and with good reason. If you spend any time reading the Bible you know that we all were made in God's image. Exactly which part of us is in God's image is less clear, but what is clear is that we were equally made in the image of God. Any law that doesn't treat people equally is as good as thumbing your nose at God. Even worse? Doing it in the name of God or based on religious beliefs (see #10).
3) Turn away immigrants.
Christian heritage runs through Judaism. We are an immigrant people. Even our religion began somewhere else. Our spiritual ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, were told by God to pick up what they had and start traveling. Moses, Miriam, and Aaron led a nation out of Egypt, into the desert and ultimately to new lands. Even Jesus spent part of his childhood as a foreigner in a foreign land. As Exodus says, we know how it feels to be foreigners in a foreign land. If you don't think being foreigners in a foreign land is still our story, ask the Native Americans. At best, turning away immigrants makes us hypocrites; at worst, it makes us betrayers of our ancestors and our God.
Why are only blue eyed blonde haired non-black / Judah people allowed in the United Satanic Ku Klux Klans of America.
I find it very ironic when you say Democrats/liberals "Limit the rights of a select group of people" and "Turn away immigrants" because most conservatives/Republicans are anti-gay and anti-amnesty.
OpinionoftheEagle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro literally plagerised the arguments in the 2nd round. This is an automatic loss of argument points as they were not his own. Sources - Con. This is due to Pro's plagerism of his source. Pro forfeits all source points for the erroneous use of them. Clear win for Con. I would highly recommend that Pro create his own arguments for these debates. You can't copy and paste from someone else's words from another site and use them as your own, that isn't how you properly source arguments. I wish this wasn't the case, as it's always unfortunate seeing plagerism here, but Con clearly wins due to this.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.