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

My deepest apologies to my opponent. I have been busy with other obligation, which stole my attention. I did not notice that the timer ran out. I would have it no other way, than to have the judges grant the opponent the point of conduct. I would however, like to point out that the debate was ill-formatted from the beginning. I find it to be a gross offense against the rules for my opponent to establish guidelines during the second round of the debate and proceed to base arguments on those rules, rarely touching the argument resolved in round one. I cannot debate the moral actions of Christians. The Christian body (as a whole) is utterly corrupted and just as depraved as the secular counterpart. My argument is based on the total merit of the Bible. This is obviously a losing argument, since it's merit relies on the existence of God, which was not a consideration laid forth in the rules. I henceforth assumed a defensive stance against the claims of the opponent. No matter how the opponent words her outrage, my defense of her accusations against the Bible have been met with unapologetic push-back. Take notice: My Opponent called the Bible sexist, but failed to prove that sexism is immoral. Therefore, the authority of the Bible was not challenged, but simply defined or labeled. My opponent failed to demerit the Bible's authority in this aspect. My Opponent claimed to have won the resolution by making analysis of the outcome of Biblical principles in government. How is this? I see no sources or proof. My opponent is slinging around rumors without cause. She has failed to prove her own resolution. (Which is sad, since she altered the resolution in round two to gain advantage).My opponent wasted a large portion of her attacks on homosexuality. I would like to point out to the judges, this was an unclever tactic. The act of homosexual behavior or the biblical definition of homosexuality does not vary from secular standards. My opponent wasted breath and proved nothing by her argument. The resolution concerns the Bible, not the gay agenda. My opponent attacks my sources concerning the benefit of the Bible in the classroom, yet her sources lacked entirely. Every link she posted was broken and all other references where unofficial, lacking a source entirely. Take for example, her sources about the school in Gwinnet, Ga. Where is her evidence? My opponent uses rumors, not sources. Con said:"The CON has consistently supported the burden of the case while still adhering to the resolution,"... Ladies and Gentlemen of the voting public, Con has accepted the burden of proof. I was sure that it would be mine to carry, but she has graciously accepted to prove the Bible lacking in moral standing. Since this is the case, let me provide you with the sources she has used to make her case.www.foxnews.comI hope this source helps the reader make sense of her rhetoric. In a final note, I would like to comment on my opponents above references quote. Adhering to a burden of proof that was furnished ex post facto is cheating. Not a single measure of tolerance should be shown for this kind of debating. I have no illusions of winning the debate. Despite my opponents poor conduct concerning the 'bait and switch' resolution, I still would insist on granting her the point of conduct. I sincerely apologize for missing a round.