Resolved: American government ought follow Biblical principles in making decisions for the country.

Judges, my opponent has clearly forfeited the previous round, so not only can you extend my previous rebuttals across the flow, but you can also give to me the conduct point for being able to be punctual in every single around. Since this is the final round of the debate and there are rebuttals from the PRO, I will gladly explain to you why I should be the victor in this debate:Resolution/Contentions 2, 3, & 4: I clearly have won the resolution level because I explained to you exactly why we need to look at the effects that come out of practicing Biblical principles in government: because this is what constitutes the actual debate, and not only do I explain this, but my opponent clearly implicitly agrees with this when he also analyzes the effects of having Bibles and Biblical principles in the public sector. With this said, my opponent makes no arguments to any of my other contentions other than the first one, which explain the effects of having such Biblical principles being functioned by the hand of government, and at this point, I have upheld my burden better than my opponent has. Sexism argument: My opponent argues at first that the Bible is not sexist in any way with his quotations from the Bible but then moves on to defend the position that the man is the natural, traditional head of the household, so there's some contradiction in my opponent's case, and what he says upholds everything that I have been saying about how the Bible subordinates women because he's saying that men are just the head rather than having the man and woman be equal to one another in the household. He also makes no arguments whatsoever against my evidence giving Biblical quotations where the woman is dictated by God to be under the man, and for these reasons, you can conclude that the Bible subordinates women. Homosexuality argument: My opponent tries to assert that the Bible tackles only the action of men engaging in sexual acts with men, but then when looking at the quotations from the Bible he provides, I explained to you how God was actually condemning the actual passion of being attracted to other men, meaning that his evidence actually supports my case, and I explained how these teachings are detrimental to society as well.My opponent's evidence: Let's take my opponent's case from the top. First, my opponent provides a bunch of statistics about how the Bible has been really good for education and whatnot without providing the causation and explanation thereof, and his only attempt to try to justify this point is where he provides this article explaining the results of a homeschooling study, then providing its own conclusion that the Bible somehow helped out in this. Basically, the article is manipulating the conclusions of the study, so when it comes to that level, his evidence is totally invalid. This is not even to speak of the other statistics he provides about rising crime rates and whatnot and links this in no way to the establishment of Biblical principles. He says that I was trying to argue that the Bible has been detrimental to education. He was obviously not paying attention to my case at all. What I was trying to get at is the point that my opponent has no causation in his evidence and there's counterevidence to say otherwise, such as the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology. When it comes to looking at the entirety of my opponent's evidence, it is clear that the judges should look in my favor.Basic reasons for CON vote: My opponent has dropped almost the entirety of my case, most of his evidence and statements support what I am saying about the Bible, and the rest of his evidence is completely flawed and invalid. The CON has consistantly supported the burden of the case while still adhering to the resolution, attacked every single one of the PRO's points, has not forfeited even one round of this debate, and showed you how all of his opponent's evidence supports the CON. Thus, I urge the CON vote.Thank you judges for taking the time to review this case carefully, and thanks to my opponent for this debate.