Liberalism Or Conversativism: The Future

Hello all, I will now discuss your argument, and expand on what I have written in the comments section. I'll start by refuting the points I disagree most with, before going on to relate common ground. Firstly, you state Conservatism is based on a biblical worldview, and that conservatism looks to the past to rebuilt. We are all aware of how "history repeats itself", however that in itself goes against progress, specifically social progress. Simply put, life in biblical times were very different to how life is now. Being more specific, you state a minimal government restricts personal freedom and liberty, whereas I pointed out too much liberty leads to destruction, again very few business respect the environment and have do not have efficient CSR plans. If it wasn't for government legalisation and regulation, the US and UK would be so polluted, much like how China is now. The number one aim for a business is money, not the environment. Workers rights would definitely be violated. Furthermore, you state the governments' role is not to give us new rights, how can we moved forward if rights are not adjusted to shifts with trends and progressive needs? This includes healthcare, to deny a poor man health care is just morally wrong. Although as mentioned, I'm not pro large gov, because that does go against freedom of speech. Social class gap: Conservatives feel that the unemployed are lazy, whereas the unemployed feel resources are distributed unfairly. As mentioned in the comments, it truly is difficult to work if the odds are stacked against you, again factors include: -Lack of Resources, Community Services and Facilities -Racial/Sexual Discrimination -Mental/Physical Health issues -Live in an area of high drug-crime rate. Gender roles: By denying woman a place in industries, we are forfeiting massive potential, for several reasons, especially the fact that: -Woman have tact, they are smarter, whereas men are prone to ego and arrogance, and woman know how to counter it. Religion: I said: "Similarly religious folk have deep insecurities, they hold their holy texts dear to them, not recognising the state of the world around them." You said: "And those religious texts that you dismiss are the only things that have made a nation like this possible. If you want to remove them, you are going to cause a lot of blood and misery in the death of the values that make our country great". I'll say: What about the genocide of the native Indians for example, did not make your country great? Religion is suspect to personal perception, in no way should it dictate how a nation should run, but unfortunately it does. Again religion and social progress are going in opposite directions. In other words, religion thrives on violence, countries are established via violence, eg see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On your debate style: You have good points, although its very repetitive, and lacking content, a lot of your argument is based on biblical foundations, something inaccessible to an ethnic minor. I would have liked you to discuss CSR and the environment, as I want to know how right wingers view the environment. Common Ground: From a chaos viewpoint, slow change with implementation is definitely better than radical change without implementation, however leftists like me choose to focus on the negatives of the world instead of built our own lives, so therefore in our eyes, radical change is necessary. In other words, I feel some liberals like myself bark more than we act, whereas conservatives act first, excluding those who are active volunteers. Again, I'm pro Personal responsibility, but again visit the comments section to revisit what I wrote about the limitations- (pros/cons) of Personal Responsibility.