The conservative view point should be labled as hate speech to eliminate it for ever.

1. My opponent just repeats his question again: Why is it so incredibly hard? a. I've tried to explain this to my opponent in nearly every round, but let me simplify it even more: the statement itself should prove why; liberals and conservatives have extremely different agendas and ideologies, on different sides of the political spectrum; thus, to find a liberal sincerely defending the actions of a conservative (as opposed to making accusations, as my opponent has already shown liberals to be prone to) is an absurd thing to ask of me. The odd thing is, my opponent tries to fix this situation by saying that it should be a PROMINENT liberal defending a conservative; herein lies another fallacy: b. The Spotlight Fallacy My opponent makes the mistake of believing that a prominent liberal in media, politics, etc. can be representative of the entire liberal movement; obviously, this is simply not the case; not all liberals are going to share the opinions of their prominent counterparts; on the flip side, he extends the fallacy through the example of Bill O'Reilly being 'thrown under the bus'; understand that, despite my opponent's claim, that this is in no way hate; obviously, O'Reilly appeared to be misrepresenting the viewpoints of other conservatives, and other conservatives wisely separated themselves from this: again, despite what my opponent might say, not all conservatives are like Bill O'Reilly. 2. Evidence vs Logic a. While his first few sentences here are a bit hard to decipher, I'm assuming that he means all the sources are "opposite of a liberal point of view"; if this were case, conservatives very likely wouldn't be accusing their own movement of hate speech. Alternatively, assuming my opponent meant that these sources are attacking the "opposite point of view (conservatism)", then he's simply dodging my argument yet again. Let me explain something; proof consists of two parts: Evidence and logic; my opponent has provided a multitude of different links, and saying that, because they were unchallenged, and because there were a lot of accusations, his claim must be true; I understand that he has a lot of 'evidence', but he never backs his position up with logical warrants, and simply dodges every attack I make by hiding behind his pile of sources; I've clearly proven that his ad populum and negative proof fallacies can't be allowed to stand in today's round; also, in my opponent's last argument, his logic is a bit circular; when I question the validity of his logic, he simply says that his multiple sources explain the validity of the sources; simply put, the sources are correct because the sources say so. I'm sure you see the flaw here. b. He claims that the news media would call someone out if they weren't telling the truth, as the media takes both sides; this is simply untrue; human nature inherently produces bias, and the news media cannot escape this; you have stations like FOX News that are primarily conservative, and stations like CNN and MSNBC that are primarily liberal; with the majority of stations favoring the left (as liberalism is considered far more popular by Americans in the current times), it's easy to see why media stations would leave liberal accusations of hate speech unchallenged; it goes back to the unanswered argument that political mudslinging accounts for many of these unchallenged accusations. As opposed to numbering and lettering, I just had to take a few statements from my opponent himself. "Logic dictates that if an accusation goes unchallenged it must be true." http://en.wikipedia.org... I don't have much to say on this: my opponent himself dictates that 'because these accusations aren't proven false, they must be true'. Call it negative proof, or argument from ignorance, it doesn't really matter: This is a fallacy. "Liberals can not stand hateful speech or thought and discredit anyone in their movement when accused of hate speech or hateful ideas." So, would liberals discrediting each other for acting illiberally be akin to conservatives discrediting each other, for example, Bill O'Reilly, for acting un-conservatively? If not, it sounds like you're saying that liberals are able to do it, but if conservatives do it, they are hateful; again voters, note the irony there. Back to numbers and letters for a bit, now. 3. The sources a. My opponent can honestly say whatever he pleases regarding the sources, because the main reason that I actually used them is to prove that, simply because one puts links out there does not mean they are correct, as my opponent has clearly demonstrated for us, as I had hoped; conversely, my opponent has also inadvertently shown us that, simply because sources are unchallenged does not make them true, no matter how many times one asserts that fallacious logic is true. b. There is one small thing that I would like to say about the biased sources, such as Conservapedia. This was also intended as a bit of a trap for my opponent: by calling out Conservapedia as a biased source, he must also accept the bias in some of his own sources, such as Liberapedia and Feministing; this goes back to my previous argument that, just because my opponent provides you a link does not make it substantive evidence, especially when it's surrounded by faulty logic. 4. Pro's final thoughts a. My opponent makes a few interesting final comments, such as the fact that both liberals and conservatives are called out for hate speech; this goes back to my previous argument on how the accusations of 'hate speech' are nothing more than mudslinging. b. His assertion that "conservatives are haters and their ideas are based on hate" is still that; strip away the biased sources, fallacious logic, and incoherency, and you get a still-unwarranted assertion. c. Once again, he asserts the argument from ignorance regarding the sources; re-apply my previous analysis. d. His last claim is just silly, that 'no one wants to touch conservative ideas with a ten foot pole... etc." Conclusion: I don't want to sound like a broken record any more than I have to, but let me just rock the flow one last time with a little summary. My opponent has done a lot of things in this round; he has asserted what was proven to be faulty logic as truth, he has created a multitude of fallacies, he has dodged a massive amount of my refutations by hiding behind a pile of sources, he has dropped countless numbers of his own arguments, and he has fallen into my traps at every turn. I hope you can see the absurdity of Pro's position as clearly as I can. I know that I've done my job today, and I hope that you all feel the same way. And sadolite... Thank you for this opportunity. :)