Money should be in politics

My opponent's main gripe, as he sorely sent me a rage-filled PM about (I'd love a deduction in conduct if I can get it, but I don't know if there's a way to prove it, so it's up to those if they take my word on it or not) is that I didn't talk about "money in influenceing politics". But, for the third time, I ask you to refer back to my case, where I went through the resolution word-by-word and established what ground was permissible, under the resolution, for the pro and the con. My opponent never touched on that analysis except to say, basically, "Hey! You didn't do what I wanted you to do! "Sorry 'bout that. Word your resolution more carefully to avoid people like me who take it literally. But let's move past that and continue down the rest of the way. My opponent seems to be confused about a lot of things in his last round. My opponent seems to think that I'm going for some unknown fallacy, and I have no idea what he's actually talking about. Just saying, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is a fallacy that says "Bad Resolutional Wording Fallacy" then sure, I went for that. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, so my opponent's arguments don't make much sense. Not to mention that the fallacy talk is entirely new, and I already went over why the last round shouldn't include anything new, but that's besides the point. Just ensure the deduction in conduct from this and we can move on. My opponent then makes an entirely new refutations to my point that if we take away the money in politics, nobody has a voice. But a) this is entirely new, it wasn't made anywhere else in the rounds, and b) he doesn't actually refute my argument. I said that if we take the money out of politics, we have no way to get our voice out. We have no money to reserve speaking arenas, no money to hold rallies, no money to buy television ads, and no money to, basically, get our voice out there. This was said in the second round, and even more so in the third. Nowhere did he refute my case on either. So, at this point, he hasn't refuted my case at all. It becomes an easy vote for con from there, even if his case still stands past my arguments. But his case doesn't stand past my arguments. Again, look to my responses in the second and third rounds, which were not touched at all until this final round, about how a) his argument doesn't apply to the resolution, and b) how his argument prevents us from having a voice. With his case refuted, the refutations conceded, and my case never refuted until the final round, the vote becomes really simple for the voters:Reasons to vote pro:1. He conceded my case up 'till the final round, after I already pointed out why it was wrong to post new arguments in the final round.2. He conceded the refutations against his case, up 'till the final round. Since they went conceded, we can consider his case refuted.3. I argued the resolution, while my opponent tried to twist it into a different resolution than the one he actually made when making this debate.4. If we negate, we prevent his case from ever becoming true i. e. we prevent anyone from actually being able to have a voice. Resons to vote con:1. Uhh. .. .. .From an objective stand-point, none really.2. At least he argued every round! There's something!