This house believes churches should not involve themselves in political campaigns.

Ready for the perfect example of a round where it's just two ships passing in the night? Most of the responses to what I raised in my last round was drawn from what he said -- or just blatantly copy-pasted -- from previous rounds. The problem with this is that I already addressed most, if not all, of the things he pulls from. My responses aren't ever addressed. So let's just run this down starting on my side of the flow.Extend my second observation. Since the resolution doesn't tell us what kind of involvement we're talking about, I'm free to specify a specific kind of involvement that people of a church ought to be allowed to do (i.e. voting in elections). Moreover, saying that churches have to act in X ways is baseless in terms of the scope of this debate because the resolution itself is ambiguous and doesn't lend us to any kind of conclusions as to how churches are. His responses to this are entirely non-sensical and don't even address the argument put forth. My argument is that if the resolution isn't clear on what churches are or do, then trying to dictate such lacks warrant within the scope of this debate. There's no response to this anywhere in the debate. The implications of this observation are two-fold. First is that saying that churches can only act through a religious lense and cannot deviate from this framework in any way lacks warrant in this debate. His attempts to say that "churches are A, B, and C, and must act in X, Y, and Z ways or they aren't a church" don't have any kind of warrant from the resolution. It really doesn't matter what kinds of slanted examples he wants to try and paint: if he's saying that churches can't act outside of religious, evangelical means and motives, I contest his definition of a church. That's what I've been saying all of this debate, and that's what I've been asking him to substantiate all of this debate other than by saying "that's just what a church is". He has yet to do so. Hold this against him.Second is that I can advocate for any kind of involvement that I would like to (i.e. voting in elections). By affirming the resolution, we're saying that people in a church cannot vote in political elections, meaning that it leads to the two harms. His response of "I'm not showing how them not choosing to vote is taking away their voting rights", but this response is silly: they're voting now. It's not like people of religions aren't voting. By affirming, we're inevitably telling them that they can't vote anymore. If that's not what he's advocating for, then he's not actually advocating for the affirmative side of the resolution.With that being out there, extend the first half of my case. By telling them they can't vote for who they want to lead the country, we're stripping them of their right to autonomy, which is a harm to their human worth. He re-extends a point of his saying that if something's not worthwhile, then there's no real reason to care about it, but I have clear argumentation and cited evidence as to why we ought to care about autonomy and human worth coming out of my case. There's definitely reason to care about it. This is clear negative offense back toward the resolution that outweighs his case in terms of impact. Then extend out the second half of my case. Eliminating the right to vote from churches will cause a collapse of the republican party, leading to a single-party rule which is the starting point of totalitarianism. There's plenty of clear reasons why we want to avoid a totalitarian government. His only response to this in the last round is to re-quote himself from the third round, but the problem with this is that I kinda already responded to this. To recap:1. I'm extending out the observation two, meaning that I can specify exactly what kind of involvement I want to advocate for, meaning that this specificity is totally in line with the resolution.2. If he wants to argue that losing the Republican party isn't actually harmful, he was free to do so. He didn't though. He only said this might not necessarily be bad. The problem with this is that I'm extending out argument that says that this actually would be bad, so this fails.My case is the first place you negate the resolution. While theoretical syllogisms are nice thought experiments, the way to actually win a debate is by giving a reason for judges to vote for your case. The way we do this is through impacts and reasons to prefer your arguments over your opponent's argument. I'm extending out impacts of a harm to human worth, loss of the rights to autonomy, and a totalitarian government. Those impacts are weighed against the impacts of Bossy's case which are......wait...there aren't really any impacts being extended across from his case other than if it's right it's right. But even if he's right, the harms coming from affirming the resolution should be more than sufficient reason to avoid affirming the resolution. I'm the only one trying to do any kind of impact analysis and weighing between cases, meaning that I'm the only one actually trying to, y'know, win the debate. And don't buy we can't ever use faith or have faith be useful. I've already outlined multiple examples where we use faith in every day life. He's never once responded to them throughout the entirety of the debate, only trying to say that a can't be b, which isn't even an accurate example. It'd be more like pro would advocate that a and b can't make C, and I'm advocating that it can. I never made the claim that they were the same thing, rather that we can use both at the same time without the universe imploding. Now onto his case.2.1 is bollocks for the three reasons I've outlined throughout the round. His response to me responding to his defense of it was "I dealth with this last round". K, but I responded to how you dealt with it. And extend out the example he was so kind to provide that shows that belief can't be the same thing as action (i.e. the Christian/Atheists example). Strip the groups of all their actions and focus on only what they believe, and only one of them can be considered a church rather than both, regardless of their actions. This means that the actions a church takes are irrelevant to being a church: they can take actions that aren't in a religious perspective and still be a church so long as their beliefs line up to the church's. Not eveything has to be shoving religion down your throat. 2.2 is bollocks because he's not doing enough work to show that we can't comprehend things that are infinte, even though we talk about them and discuss them all the time. He says that if it's infinite you need to be able to understand everything which isn't possible with something that's infinite, but he never warrants why that actually means we can't comprehend infinite things: why do I need to understand all of it to understand it? He never actually responds to this defense, merely saying it's "immune from and already deals with it". K, well I kind of responded to that defense. Care to actually defend it?And I love the part where I accuse him of defending his conclusion by assuming the conclusion is true as a starting point. His response was literally re-quoting the part of the text I accused him with. You see that "my response is that, if my argument holds water, ..." in there? He literally just assumes it's true and goes from there. He's not actually showing us that it's true though. 2.3 is bollocks because I'm showing examples of faith and rationality operating hand in hand. Not that they're the same thing, but rather they can co-exist. His entire argument is that they're mutually exclusive, they can't exist together or, idk, the zombie apocolypse starts. The mere fact that he doesn't actually respond to the examples I provide should tell you how this part of the debate goes pretty clearly.And this train-wrecks his syllogism in three different places. Remember, I only have to win one of these in order for his case to fall, as that's the nature of a syllogism: it needs all of it's premises to stand in order for it to be a coherent argument. This means that if you think I'm winning even just one of these, then you negate the resolution as his case falls and I've fulfilled my burden as the negative debater of denying the truth of the affirmative. So let's wrap this up:The first place you're negating the resolution is either part of my case. Both parts of my case are held up throughout the debate, both of which are extending off clear negative impacts to affirming the resolution. I'm showing how these impacts outweigh those of the non-existent impacts coming from the affirmative case. This means that you have two places to negate before you even look to his syllogism, even if it's true. But I'm refuting the syllogism in three different places. He's not doing enough work to win on any of them, but all I need to do is win one of them and his case falls flat. Without his case it's impossible for him to even have a sliver of a chance of fulfilling his burden. This gives you three different places, for a total of five ways, to negate the resolution.