Western foreign policy should abandon attempts at universializing liberal values

Well, firstly, I don't think Pro demonstrated that Liberal Democracies ought not to convey/abandon attempts to Universalize Liberal Values, he certainly didn't demonstrate that Liberal Values were bad, nor did he demonstrate that the U.N is the only viable way to produce progress in turning anti-liberal or anti-democratic countries towards a more open and liberal country.Since, these propositions are not challenged.1. Liberal Values are Bad2. It is not in the interest of liberal democracies to abandon their foreign policy3. The U.N is not the only viable means to progress and Universalize Liberal Values.Then I don't see much of an argument, but let's have a look at the objections before the positive argument anyway.The first argument is a category error, it conflates the free expression of ideas, with the hegemonic attempt at the legalization of the free expression of ideas. So, when Con says that the Rights of Man, (Also he is being extremely controversial using this as his 'source' of information, due to the contemporary Liberal commentators like Murray Rothbard, Walter Block and Robert Nozick would completely reject this definition.), he simply means to conflate the idea that resolutions to promote Free Speech would ultimately lead to the suppression of ideologies. First and foremost, a political system may put buffers on attempt to create a theocratic or Communist political movement, but the free expression thereof is not necessary banned.Pro has sort of tied the idea that promoting or universalizing Free expression through the U.N, would prohibit the free expression of Ideologies, or that it would 'ban' attempts to promote it. This doesn't follow, countries I agree whom supposedly espouse Liberal Values sometimes are contradictory. I admit that. The values themselves are not bad nor are the failures. But to say that a country who adopts the Rights of Man article as seen above would 'suppress ideologies' that go against it is patently false. Who would disagree that Free Speech is constantly challenged everyday in speech "Write and print", numerous colleges, think tanks and social justice movements challenge the Liberal Value of Free Speech, and it is their right to.So, Pro's first argument has a lot of very loose holes in it. Moving onto to the positive argument why Freedom of Expression is valuable. Well, it allows the free exchange of ideas, and as Pro put it for me, any attempt as suppressing free speech would contradict values of political pluralism. Since he seems to agree that Free expression is good, I don't necessarily see debate here. Encouraging countries to free and open dialogue is not an anti-liberal value, long gone are the days of believing in the idea that countries are passive or neutral to their own values.Furthermore, the encouragement of these values safeguards attempts to destroy them from other Theocratic of dangerous groups. Islamic violence against cartoonists or authors in countries that espouse these views, necessarily means we must be defiant in their actions. To uphold this value for ourselves, necessarily means fighting its suppression anywhere it is seen to be a threat to those living under oppression. That can be done simply through U.N. resolutions, public denouncements, refusal to co-operate in trade, all viable and fair actions of a Liberal Democracy that refuses to accept the conditions of Theocrats and violent oppressors.Thus far, I have established this.1. Freedom of Expression is not a contradiction of terms.2. Freedom of Expression is a valuable concept.3. The promotion of it is viable .4. The promotion of it in the U.N is necessary for domestic affairs.5. Liberal democracies ought not to abandon attempts to further its Liberal Values.I also must say, I do not have to establish every single value as being viable of promotion, only that it would be absurd to abandon all values. Since it is not absurd to abandon all values, we shouldn't abandon the promotion of Freedom of association and expression, a core value.In conclusion to my positive argument, we have shown why it is viable to promote a core value. The second argumentCore points. 'Liberalism is a new system/ideology'Reformulation, as shown Liberalism is a distinct and diverse set of independent ideas. Core values are such that of Free association and expression.Core points. 'Liberalism adapts'Yes, but that doesn't mean it had changed so much that it is unrecognizable nor bad.Core points. 'Encouraging the Middle East to change is unproductive and hegemonic'My opponent certainly cites sources, the relevance of such, I am unsure of. They don't really place his argument in a practical sphere, which would be the value of such a thing. Again, nothing we've seen here is really a smack down argument against Liberalism. Of course values adapt and countries change, of course the history of an emerging set of ideas have violent pasts, most, if not all do, but as I've clearly pointed out, we can, through peaceful means encourage these values.Also, the Middle Easts value systems as a diverse as Europes, to believe that Ergodan was correct in two lines about the entire history and culture of an area with hundreds of millions of people is absurd. India has a rich and vibrant secular culture influenced by Liberal Values and the promotion of such through authors and trade. You still need to establish these propositions.1. Liberal values are bad or2. Liberal values cannot through any means be established or encouragedI've shown both are false. Liberal values are good and that they offer strong individual rights to people. Expression is the core value of a Liberal society and that should be preserved. Secondly, through boycotts, sanctions, removal of trade routes, U.N. resolutions and even political unity through International collective interests we can establish a progression. Furthermore, look at the secular Kurdistan, a place that Ergodan ought to have mentioned. They have become a prime example of progress without violence. Secular in their nature and many socialists and communist advocates, this is evidence if anything is.So, in conclusion I look forward to an argument to prove your case and not a history lesson in the adaption of liberal values.Sources :http://www.bbc.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://nypost.com...http://news.bbc.co.uk...