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

Resolution/Observation Rebuttal: It's very evident from even the very beginning of my opponent's rebuttal that he is twisted in his logic. He's saying that because of my discussion on the actions of Christianity in my second and third contentions, I'm deviating from the original resolution, even though that I provide an observation and definition in the beginning of my debate explaining that we must look at the actions of Christianity based on their protocol and clearly define Christianity as the teachings of Jesus Christ (outlined, I assume in the Bible). There really wouldn't be much to debate if we don't focus on what kind of effects would come out of installing Biblical principles in society. My opponent does the very same thing when he talks about the effects of talking the Bible out of classrooms and whatnot, so if he's trying to make an attack against me for analyzing the actions of religion based on Biblical principles, he's just as much in the wrong as I am for doing the exact same thing by analyzing what would happen if these Biblical principles were not installed. Based on this, I'm not violating any of the rules (which I have not established) by discussing the effects of Biblical principles. Rather, I'm making this debate more tangible, and everything still applies. My Opponent's approach: At the point, then, where my opponent decides to ignore my second and third contentions and focus on my first one, the judges can extend my second and third contentions across the flow. Sub-point 1a Defense: My opponent responds in no way to the Biblical clause Gensis 3:16, which stated the punishment not only for Eve but for all women, and this clause from the Bible upholds the idea that husbands are to rule over their wives. Extend this piece of evidence because my opponent made no argument against it. As for the evidence that my opponent has placed in response to my sub-point, the only thing that he really proves is that the Christian God argues for husband to love his wife. It doesn't deny the idea that women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands. My opponent obviously has no understanding of what "submissive" means because the submission of a person onto another is to take a subordinate position. At the end of the day, the woman is submitting to her husband, and at that point, it is clear that the woman is meant according to the word of the Bible to be under him. Sub-point 1b Defense: Had my opponent responded to the Romans 1:18-32 evidence, he would've understood that the Bible clearly states that homosexuals are not to enter into the kingdom of heaven, for one thing. Extend this evidence. Furthermore, my opponent limits homosexual intercourse to anal sex, even though not all homosexuals engage in anal sex or even sexual intercourse for that matter, and homosexuals are not the only people who engage in anal sex. Oral sex can be unhealthy as well, and heterosexuals and homosexuals alike also engage in this. The main thing, then, that we have to focus on is the actual action of two men deciding to engage in homosexual intercourse of some sort rather than how they wish to achieve it, and this is not something that my opponent touches on at all. Sub-point 1c Defense: I apologize for the broken link. I will provide a full citation at the end of my rebuttal. Argument A, B, and C response: I have to point out the main two flaws in my opponent's argument. First, there's the evident fact that my opponent's statistics show a correlation of some sort, but not a causation. He basically states that pregnancies have gone up, divorce is higher, violent crime has increased, and education is poorer. He fails to explain how any of it was a result of not enforcing Christianity. For example, he makes the argument that education is failing right after the removal of the Bible, even though there is counterevidence to show that it wasn't the removal of religion from schools, like the Gwinnett School of Mathemetics, Science, and Technology in Lawrenceville, GA, which never fails to have soaring SAT scores even though Christianity is not a focus therein. Rather, a secular focus on education is the pinnacle. Was the decline because of the fact that Christianity was removed from classrooms, or was it because the Bible is so strong in reading level that it enforced the minds of youth when it came to reading? If Christianity, based on the implications of my opponent's case, is supposed to reduce these numbers, then why has violent crime increased even though we've had administrations of American presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who placed an emphasis on religion in their political actions? With his statistics, my opponent answers one question and leaves 50 others unanswered. He can't just slap on a statistic and call it proof. He needs to prove that it's proof too, basically, by providing the causation rather than ignoring lurking variables.