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

O1: Negate means to deny the truth of something[1]. This means that my entire job in this debate is to deny the truth of pro. This means that the BoP is on Pro. If I can refute his argument that should be sufficient to win as that's my job by definition of negating the resolution. O2: Because the resolution doesn't specify what kind of involvement we're looking at here, that means that any kind of involvement is within the scope of the resolution. This means that I can advocate for any kind of involvement that I'd like to. Pro's argument functions syllogistically meaning that everything is a natural flow of logic that relies on the previous premise being true to support the following premise. This means that he needs to be able to defend every link in the chain in order for his argument to stand. And this is his sole argument presented, meaning that if I refute this argument then I win the debate. So let's look at it. Response to 2.1:First, this is blatantly not true. Not everything that a church does has to be motivated by religion. To say that this is true is to say that a church who supports a mission to rebuild storms after a home suddenly isn't a church anymore, but rather some other kind of organization. Second, this argument misunderstands what it means to be a church, i.e. to be a group of followers of a religion/faith (this is definitionally true[2]). This means that action is irrelevant to being a church or not, rather it's belief that's the determining factor. Third, even if you're not buying either of my arguments saying that churches can still be churches without acting with religious motivations, he provides zero warrant for why this part of his argument is actually true. His only attempt to warrant this is that people don't call charities and stuff like that churches, but that only begs the question of why that's relevant or why that's a necessary distinction to make. He's not putting anywhere close to enough work into this part of his argument to warrant that, and you should hold that against him.Response to 2.2:First, the jump in logic required to substantiate 2.21 makes no sense. There's no warrant for why God can't be comprehended in his entirety if he's infinite. Second, even if God exists outside of the realm of reality, that doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of reason. Clearly we've had plenty of theologists and philosophers contemplate the issue of god's existence and come up with plethoras in favor and against. None of it would actually be possible if God was outside of our ability to reason. Response to 2.3:First, this is entirely unsubstantiated. There's literally nothing but his own assertion warranting this part of his case. Until he provides some kind of warrant for why faith requires the absense of reason, there's no reason to believe this part of his argument. Second, this isn't true at all. Reason and faith can go hand-in-hand all the time. Think about sitting down in a chair. If I'm trying to decide if the chair will be able to support my weight, it's kind of hard to determine outside of actually sitting down on it to see. I can check to see if it's broken anywhere or weak structurally, but at the end of the day none of that will definitively tell me if it will support my weight, meaning that to sit down it requires faith that it won't break on me and spill me out on my a**. But I can be reasonably sure that if there's no flaws in the chair then it will probably be able to hold my weight, meaning that I substantiated my faith in the chair holding my weight with reason as for why this is probably true. Think of the reason why we elect people to be the president. We can reason out why one person would be better for the country than another person and while, and how the country would be better if this person was elected. But none of us can actually know that these things we reason out to be possible will actually come to pass if we elect this person. It, therefore, requires faith to elect the person we reason out to believe to be the best person for presidency to actually be that best person, meaning that faith and reason go hand-in-hand in our decision making processes. This train-wrecks his argument in three different places. First, I'm showing that churches don't always have to act through a religious lense, meaning that even if the rest of his case is true that it can prescribe to reasonable principles for the sake of participation in politics.Second, I'm showing that religions aren't inherently based around solely faith, that we can use reason to come to religious conclusions and that people have been using reason to discuss religion for forever now, meaning that churches can use reason when participating in politics and be consistent with pro's argument. Third, I'm showing that faith and reason are both principles we use in conjunction together, meaning that churches are capable of being consistent with pro's argument, thus leaving us with no reason we should deny them rights to participate. This means that each of these reasons are independently sufficient reasons for negating the resolution. If I'm winning on even one of those arguments, then that's sufficient to refute the aff case, and thus win the debate. But even if you don't like all of those reasons, time for the neg case.The negative plan text is this: All members of a religious church will have the right to vote in elections for political office. I reserve the right to clarify. There's a number of reasons for this. First: Denying the right to vote denies people to be able to make their own choices on who they would like to lead them politically. This is a harm to people's right to autonomy and ability to make their own choices. There's two reasons why we ought to value autonomy[3]: "Firstly ... autonomous choices deserve special respect because persons, as capable of self-determination, are entitled, all else being equal, to be self-determining without interference ... autonomy functions primarily as a side-constraint which forbids paternalistically-motivated interference in the self-regarding, minimally voluntary choices of others, ... Secondly ... autonomous choices deserve special respect because ... such respect conduces to desirable ... consequences ... autonomous choices are not to be respected merely because they are autonomous ... but rather because doing so will lead to the most beneficial prudential results ..." Second: Denying the right to vote for religious members is the death of the Republican party. The vast majority of religious groups (protestant, evangelitical, etc.) voted overwhelmingly in the Republican's favor[4]. These groups that vote Republican are the vast majority of the population, meaning that it's the largest demographic of the population[5]. Denying their right to vote cripples republican candidates and turns the country into a de facto single party system, where Democratic nominees are the only ones who can get elected to offices. With a single party system of only Democrats, there's no one to contest their ideas, no counterpoint to creat discussion. It's the seeds of totalitarianism, a free reign to do as they wish with no accountability. There's a number of reasons we should fight against totalitarianism:First, totalitarian regimes are bloody and brutal. Hundreds of millions of people died at the hands of of 20th century Russia, Germany and China's totalitarian regimes. Second, totalitarian regimes are a denial of all rights, a desecration of human worth and intrinsic value. And, third party people running isn't enough to avert the disaster. They're never successful at winning any election, virtually ever[6]. This means that if the Republican party dies, we're at critical mass for totalitarianism.Sources:[1] - http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] - http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] - http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] - http://www.pewforum.org...[5] - http://www.pewforum.org...[6] - http://www.washingtontimes.com...;