Liberalism is an epidemic of stupidity:

Alright, let's start by noting that Pro is basically unresponsive to any of my burdens or definition analysis. He makes a bunch of claims as to what his burdens are, but he fails to support any of them. He starts by going off on equality, stating that it's never protected by the Constitution. He's, of course, wrong about this, ignoring that the 14th amendment literally guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to all people.[http://www.shmoop.com...] He aso ignores the famous line from the Declaration of Independence: “all Men are created equal”. I think this clearly sets up a rights system for ensuring equality, and yes, entitling people to it. But none of this is responsive to my arguments regarding his burdens.Liberalism is abstract because a set of beliefs is inherently an abstract concept. They are thoughts – a set of strongly held thoughts, mind you, but thoughts have no physical form. That is unlike a disease, which does have a verifiable physical form. Pro didn't set up the debate as “Liberalism is akin to an epidemic, spreading stupidity”; it's very literal, requiring that liberalism be an epidemic, not like an epidemic. Pro has still failed to establish that liberalism has any physical form, much less that people can “catch” it.The same holds true for proving its idiocy. He can't get away with proving that some liberlas have made policies that he views as stupid. He has to show that liberalism itself engaged in behaviors that made those policies possible. So far, all he's done is state that the ideology informed the decisions of some liberals to take certain actions. That's not enough, and even if it was, the voter still has to show that these policies were solely the result of adherence to liberalism as an ideology. He hasn't done that, either, nor has he stated anything about objective harm. In order to establish “good sense” one needs to establish what's good and what's not good. The only way to do that is through objective harms and benefits, something he says he doesn't have to do. He doesn't get to pretend one of his major burdens doesn't exist.But also note that Pro himself states that he must prove that liberalism is also immoral. So now, he's required to prove that the behaviors of liberalism are objectively both stupid and immoral. He still hasn't done that for either one, nor has he even established what is moral so as to define what is not. Immorality requires that we understand the standards of morality, and yet he hasn't presented a single one.So, let's get on to what he does do.1. Gay MarriagePro basically just re-iterates his points to start. He does nothing to state why equality is a bad thing to pursue, only that it's not a right. I've shown that it is a right, but even if it wasn't, Pro has presented no harm to pushing equality. All he's done is state that it's not the government's job to decide what marriage should be, though he hasn't stated whose job it is, or why the government's making this decision is necessarily harmful. Hell, he hasn't even explained why doing something that's unconstitutional (and there's no reason to believe that this is unconstitutional) is harmful.I showed in the previous round that governments were deciding the equality or lack thereof of gay marriage well before the supreme court ruling. Pro hasn't explained why the decision to allow gay marriage is a transgression, whereas the many decisions not to allow it are valid. Both decide the status of a large subset of couples. In fact, I'd argue that the former is less of a transgression because it means that government doesn't alter the status of a couple based on the genders involved. Only in the latter case does the government arbitrarily decide to award rights to some, but not others, and only in that case are religious leaders denied the capacity to marry two consenting adults.Pro's links are absurdly hilarious. His first link actually goes to the trouble of explaining why this was not a case of forcing anyone to marry anyone, pointing out that the city has “'never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind' against them.” It also points to a city ordinance that clearly exempts them from having to perform same-sex marriages. The second link is from the NewsExaminer, a fake-news, urban legends site that cites several individuals involved in a case, none of whom actually exist.[http://www.politifact.com...] The third link doesn't even cite a case, just parsing Obama's words without providing any examples whatsoever.Pro drops my analysis on separation of church and state. This is important because it's the major harm he tries to establish. If you buy that this puts government in the way of church decisions, I've explained how that's beneficial with the case of Christian conversion therapy. That's the only objective harm on this point, and therefore the only means to vote on this, and since it's a harm for Pro's side, it establishes the good sense of liberalism as an ideology, and thus a reason to vote against him.2. Gun bansPro starts by cherry-picking quotes without establishing how these represent liberalism as a whole. Individual lines stated by a few elected officials are not enough to establish that they are representative of an ideology. Pro also hasn't established why citizens being able to own guns is a net benefit, so he can't establish that not being able to own them is either stupid or immoral. He's stated multiple times that disarming citizens is bad, but has never stated why. As for the idea that a gun ban wouldn't be effective, he a) hasn't shown that to be the case, b) is wrong, since it ended mass killings in Australia [http://www.nytimes.com...], c) is wrong, since gun buyback programs would reduce availability and, by consequence, increase the price of guns, and d) is wrong, since police no longer have to guess as to whether someone carrying a gun is doing so illegally. Britain is a great example as well, as the differences in homicide rates that Pro cites are based on population. Even if you don't buy that gun bans resulted in the benefits seen in Australia and Britain, Pro is the one claiming it's obviously harmful. This shows that it's not at all obvious, and therefore neither stupid nor immoral. All Pro has to prove it is a correlation between number of firearms and homicide rates, which was chiefly the result of declines in incarceration and crime rates,[http://www.theatlantic.com...], and a scatter plot that showcases just how many countries with low access to firearms have low homicide rates (note that most of those black boxes are below the line). None of this proves his point, and the latter graph just shows that correlating gun ownership with homicide rates is complete BS.Once again, Pro never showcases that liberalism is to blame and he never points to a clear, objective harm. He does drop my arguments showcasing that alternative means of homicide are far less effective, and that banning guns would clearly reduce accidental shootings and suicides. Again, an objective harm that functions as a unique voting point against his case.3. Universal healthcarePro keeps jumping around on this. Which is it? It is universal health care, is it Medicare, or is it Obamacare? Which of these is liberalism forcing on the population? They're all extremely different policies – they can't all be liberalism incarnate. Pro seems to want to establish that they are, but points to yet another conservative, George Bush (can't be sure if that's senior or junior) who “devised the initial Obama care plan”. If even Pro can't determine what liberalism is in this context, no one should even bother with this point.And the harms continue to be non-objective. Pro continues to pull numbers out of thin air, for some reason comparing U.S. healthcare costs to South Africa's without any citations or reasons whatsoever to believe his numbers. None of this establishes a clear harm, nor is any of it responsive to any of my arguments. I explained how universal health care would clearly reduce pharmaceutical prices through negotiating power, and that extends to medical device manufacturers as well. Taking the “for profit” out of health care will also reduce costs because doctors will not have incentives given to them by these companies to use their machines and drugs more often. That means fewer people will be overmedicated and overdose, and lower medical costs all around. This is yet another objective harm that functions as a reason to vote against him. And remember, any single one of these is enough to deprive Pro of his burden – if it's not objectively clear that liberalism as a whole is spreading stupidity (i.e. if it's clear that it's doing something objectively good), then that's the end of the debate.It doesn't matter what Ron Paul said, nor what Pro's view of Bernie Sanders is. He has to establish a clear, objective harm to liberalism. He hasn't even established a clear objective harm coming from any single liberal (if you're going to cherry-pick, at least do something substantial with your examples), let alone from the whole political philosophy. Recall that this debate is about liberalism and its behaviors, not the views or behaviors of any individual liberal. He hasn't even gotten close to affirming the resolution at this stage.And he has one more round to try, so make it count.