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

Resolution Argument: Judges, I have explained to you that if there were no behaviors or actions coming from the text of the Bible, there wouldn't be a debate today because there would be no conflict in the first place. At the point where I am describing the actions of Christians and Christianity in the context of their impetus by Biblical principles, and providing an analysis at a moral level of implementing such measures in society, I am still adhering to the resolution because I am still addressing the Biblical principles by explaining how they have an effect in society. It's evident that my opponent not only has poor understanding of my case but also is contradictory to his own standards considering that he talks about how we need to focus on the Bible but places statistics on how administering the Bible has had an effect on society--meaning that he's analyzing the effects of institutionalizing Christianity and the protocol thereof, the same thing that I am doing with my other contentions outside of Contention 1. Sexism Argument: My opponent has made absolutely no argument against anything I said in the previous rebuttal about the sexism in the Bible, so it should be extended. If anything, my opponent has supplemented everything I have said by stating that the role of good husbands is to be shepherds and that men are heads of households, inherently subordinating the women of the household. Since my opponent wants to bring scenarios into this, I'll pull one up as well: A woman decides that she wants a job and become part of the labor force doing a career that she has always loved, but her husband tells her that her place is to stay at home, cook dinner, and keep the house clean instead. Under my opponent's scenario, the woman would have to comply with that because the man is the head of the household, supported not only by what he said but what God himself stated in the Biblical clauses that I have reported. In his scenario, just because the man goes downstairs to face the robber doesn't mean that he's the head of the household or anything. It means he's brave, strong, and willing to defend his family, of course, but his action in no way subordinates the woman. His scenario is very non sequitur in the idea that my opponent is trying to equate being brave to being the head of the household. If the woman at some level has a standing of parity in the control of the household and has a right to be autonomous, the fact that the man is being brave just means that he's upholding his duty as one of the leaders of the household and being brave for his family. If my opponent is telling the truth, it means that the man is the better leader and head of the house because he's bigger and stronger.Homosexuals argument: First and foremost, my opponent once again fails to respond to my previous rebuttal, so extend everything I said previously across the flow. Furthermore, we move on to what he quotes from Romans 1:26,: "26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." What this is saying is not only that men were engaging with other men sexually and this was wrong, but God also stated that men were going away from their "natural course" of being attracted to other women, in addition to explaining that their interactions were a result of the error, meaning that God not only condemns the actual act of homosexuality in the context of sexual relations, but he also identifies homosexuality as an error. Thus, God indeed is condeming the attraction of members of the same sex. I explained in my contentions how this affects society, only furthering my argument as to why government ought not follow these guidelines. Sources checking: My opponent once again misunderstands my case. I never stated anywhere that removing the Bible from the classroom has been beneficial. What I am saying is that my opponent is trying to imply that removing the Bible has caused education to decline but provides no credible reason as to why this correlation has a causation. I referenced the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology in Lawrenceville, GA considering that it has some of Georgia's highest SAT scores with the average being around 1900, and the main pinnacle of this school is mathematics and science rather than religion. He talks about private schools with religious focus but doesn't explain why the fact that they have the Bible inside makes the education better. It could be that the Bible has a strong reading level and teaches people to read faster (which is what happened in colonial America with reading of the Bible in schools in order to improve reading ability), or it could be that the Bible somehow upholds greater education. It could be either. My opponent sure doesn't provide any links to the causation nor any large point to any of his evidence.Evidence on Homeschooling: The part that is credible from this is the study that the newsletter reports. It shows us that homeschooling is better for children and improves self-esteem and whatnot. The study in no way tries to make the link that this better quality of education comes from Biblical values. This is what the newsletter has reported, not the evidence itself. What my opponent has quoted in the beginning was not part of the quoted material directly from the study. This is another non sequitur argument, if not just making up conclusions. The study shows us only that homeschooling is better while the writer of the article argues that Biblical principles had something to do with this. My opponent is making the link between the two as if the study concluded this, which is totally faulty. Making up for the broken link: "Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible | Fox News." Fox News. 30 June 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com...;.