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

First, extend out observation one. By the definition of negate, it's only my job to refute Pro. Thus, the BoP's on him. He didn't contest this at all, hold him to this. All I technically have to do to win is refute his case or outweigh my case against his. He has to be sufficiently defending his case while sufficiently refuting mine to be able to win, and he's doing neither. Then, extend out observation two. Because the resolution isn't specific about what kind of involvement is being talked about, I'm allowed to specify any kind of involvement that I'm willing to defend. The involvement I'm specifying is that members of a church ought to be allowed to vote in political elections. Anything outside of this is not within the scope of my advocacy, and thus isn't responsive to the NC and has no link. Moreover, saying that churches have to act in x way is nonsensical because there's no resolutional warrant for this. This has a number of implications:First, it means that his attempt to restrict churches to only acting through religious means and through a religious lense lacks resolutional warrant to it, meaning there's no reason that in terms of the debate at hand why his argument is actually solid. His entire argument resides on the assumption that "this is just what it means to be a church" but because there's no resolutional warrant for this, it's unfair to constrict me to having to defend this. Second, it means you're preferring my case to his in terms of strength of link to the actual resolution at hand. Because the resolution isn't specific to any kind of involvement, I'm allowed to specify what kind of involvement I'd like to defend. This means that my case appeals directly to the text of the resolution, thus giving me the stronger link. This is even more critical because my opponent doesn't place a single response against this argument at all. It goes entirely dropped from his last round. And given that the next round is the final round and we've agreed to not make any new arguments in the final round, this means he physically cannot respond to this. Hold him to this drop. Then, extend out the first part of my case, giving religious members of churches the right to vote allows for the protection of their autonomy, which is a vital human right for preserving the value of human worth. He responds by saying that's not the point of his case and his case doesn't deny people the right to vote, but by saying that they should not participate in politics, that restricts their ability to vote (i. e. participate) if they're a member of the church. By affirming the resolution, he bites into the harm of violating autonomy. He also responds by saying that if his case is true then autonomy via belief in faith cannot lead to benefits, but first he's not actually winning on his case so this doesn't matter, but secondly, this misrepresents why we actually value autonomy. Autonomy isn't a means to a better end, rather it's an end in and of itself. Autonomy is the benefit, which is coming from the first part of the paragraph I cited. And thirdly, even if autonomy is just a means to a better end, he's not showing how removing our autonomy doesn't actually lead to a reduction of human worth. His argument is that having it doesn't lead to any benefits, but even if that's true he's not showing you any reason why removing it isn't harmful. Insofar as he isn't, and since I'm arguing that it does lead to a reduction of human worth, if there's clear negatives to removing it, we have no reason to remove it. My impacts still stand. Then, extend out the second part of my case. Preventing religious members from voting kills the Republican party as a political institution, effectively creating a de facto single-party system, which is the seeding point of totalitarianism. With no one to oppose the Democratic party, they'd be free to effect any kind of changes they wanted without any kind of opposition, any kind of discussion or debate of ideas and policy. We would be making the US a tyrrany. The harms of totalitarianism are more than sufficient reasons to reject the resolution. His response to this is that he only defends his case as a theoretical ideal, but that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. My argument is that if you affirm, then this will happen. Whether you defend it or advocate for it is irrelevant to whether or not it will happen in the affirmative world. He also says that I'm asking him to choose between theocracy and tyrrany, which is blatantly wrong. The entirety of my advocacy in the negative case (All members of a religious church will have the right to vote in elections for political office. ) is literally the status quo. There's nothing theocratic about having the right to vote. He also says that this isn't necessarily bad, but a) It is as my case argues because the death of the Republican party would lead to totalitarianism, and b) even if he wanted to contest this, he doesn't actually give us any kind of reason as to why this would be bad. Both halves of my case outweighs the entirety of his case because his case literally doesn't have any kind of impact. Theoretical ideas, as he concedes his case is, are only valuable insofar as they have real-world implications and reasons to prefer the ideals. I'm literally the only person applying the resolution to the real world, meaning I'm the only one with any kind of impact in the debate. So even if he wins his case, my case still outweighs and you negate anyway. But let's look at his case. Extend the three responses I make to the 2.1 section of his case. Not everything a church does has to be enacted through a religious lense and with religious motives. That doesn't mean that they "cast aside religious" and start shouting "f*ck God" up and down main street. It simply means that not everything they do has to have some kind of ulterior evangelical motive to it. His response to this is that that's what it means to be a church, but a) this is definitionally untrue as I already showed in my second point, and b) he's not doing anywhere near enough work to say why this is actually true: his refutations are elaborate, verbose ways of saying "this is how it is". Not only that, but even if you're buying his responses, his responses are a classic example of the is/ought fallacy. Even if he's winning that this is how churches are, that doesn't mean they have to be this way. We can change the way we perceive churches. Extend the second reason in particular, that by definition churches are defined as such based on their beliefs, not their actions, so the actions they take are irrelevant to their defining as a church. He gives an example of two groups of Christians and atheists and says that they both can't be definitionally churches. Turn this example against him: this is showing that if we take action out of the equation and just look at belief, that this is what defines what a church is, and not the actions they take. This is a game-over mistake for my opponent because he gives the perfect example and warrant for why churches can act outside of a religious lense and still be considered a church. He also argues that there's a distinction between belief and action, but this is absurd. I may believe that murder is okay and justifiable, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go shoot up a shopping mall for the funzies. He makes the argument that belief affects our future decision making, but never provides any kind of warrant for this. Until he provides a warrant for why every action a member of a church takes in every circumstance and every situation has to be made through religious motivations, he can't sufficiently warrant this point, and thus can't win the debate. Since the next round is the last round, he can't actually provide new warrants, meaning he can't actually win this debate. Extend my refutation of 2.2 as well. He's not warranting why if God is infinite he can't be comprehended. We do it all the time when we discuss God. He responds by saying that you need to be able to know everything about it in order to comprehend it, but that literally begs the same lack of warrant as my last question. He also says that the theologists and philosophers who discuss god are wrong if his argument is true, but that literally just takes the conclusion as true to defend the conclusion. He assumes his argument is true and uses that truth to defend his argument. He's not doing enough work here to defend this part of his case. And extend my refutations of 2.3 as well. He's not doing a sufficient enough job of warranting why faith and reason cannot co-exist. He responds that definitionally faith and reason cannot co-exist, but I've already outlined several scenarios where faith and reason co-exist and even cooperate together so that we can make rational decisions. He doesn't make any kind of response to them. It doesn't matter if his definitions say that they can't co-exist, my arguments are refuting his definitions. If there are multiple everyday scenarios that we do where faith and reason cooperate rather than fight, then his definitions cannot be valid. Summary:My case stands solidly in all aspects. It outweighs my opponent's case in terms of impacts, meaning that it's the first place you can negate. Moreover, I've refuted my opponent's case in three separate places, meaning there's three additional reasons he cannot fulfill his BoP, meaning you can negate on any one of the refutations.