Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country

Phew. That was a tough round to read and decipher. I had to smoke a joint and down half a bottle of wine before getting through that. Now... to my arguments. DefinitionsPer last round, conservatism means preserving the status quo (traditional social institutions). Liberalism means pushing political, social, and economic reforms when necessary. Conservatism is about imposing a "natural law" that is universal and never changes, while liberalism is about protecting individual rights of liberty and equality. I offered these definitions last round. They weren't contested, so I'll assume Pro concedes these definitions.Note that conservatives interpret "natural law" to be unchanging and universal. That means the law in the 1700s should be the same law today and the same law 50 years in the future. Conservatism is about imposing this natural order, so that the law doesn't ever change. Pro hasn't offered a clear definition of conservatism, so prefer this definition, as it's the definition provided by Wikipedia and comes directly from Edmund Burke's writings (a classic conservative philosopher).Burden of proofPro has the burden to prove conservatism is "much better" for Americans than liberalism. Showing that conservatism is "better" isn't enough; Pro must show that conservatism is "much" better for Americans than liberalism. Please hold Pro to that high burden by requiring substantial evidence that conservatism is better than liberalism.Relevance of Pro's argumentsThe topic is conservatism and liberalism. The stuff about communism and black people isn't relevant to this debate. Even if there is relevance, Pro hasn't offered any connection between his arguments and the debate topic. For instance, Pro offers no evidence that poor blacks are liberals and rich blacks are conservatives. And Barack Obama stands as proof of the opposite (some rich blacks are liberals). So the generalizations Pro makes about blacks and rich people are unfounded and irrelevant to the debate. The stuff about communism is equally irrelevant.Pro's only argument for conservatismPro argues conservatism is wealth-creating, i.e. that folks with conservative values become rich people. However, Pro's only evidence is anecdotal and therefore unreliable. You can't generalize about a group of people or a political ideology based on a couple examples. Furthermore, Pro's examples don't show what he claims they show. Steve Jobs grew up in a liberal household with liberal values. He identified as a democrat and voted democrat in elections (showing that he's more liberal than conservative). Bill Gates never identifies his political or social affiliation. He's neither liberal nor conservative. However, he contributes more to democrat campaigns than republican campaigns. At the least, that shows that Bill Gates is not the hardcore conservative that Pro thinks he is.Of course, all the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't mean anything when generalizing about groups of people (poor versus rich) and political ideologies (conservative versus liberal). Pro offers no evidence that the majority of rich people are conservative. And even if Pro did offer evidence that the majority of rich people were conservative, that still wouldn't show that conservatism creates rich people. It's just a correlation, and correlations don't prove causation. There's no way to tell what "caused" that person to become rich. Like I said previously, it could be because the person was a genius and hardworking, which are independent of political ideology. Sometimes, it's luck. Other times, it's hard work and perseverance. Everyone's story is difference. Pro has offered no evidence of any relationship between conservative values and becoming rich (i.e. Pro hasn't shown that being conservative makes you more likely to become rich). This was Pro's only argument to support conservatism, so Pro has not met his burden of proof.MarijuanaPro claims liberalism is bad because it allows people to smoke marijuana and thus allows them to "lose cognitive abilities." Well, here's some anecdotal evidence: I can assure Pro and our readers that I'm high right now and that I've been smoking since high school (7 years) and my cognitive abilities are better than ever. My IQ probably went up 8 points since I started smoking.Pro says letting people use marijuana is like letting people drive without speed limits, but that analogy loses sight of a key distinction. People can use marijuana in private where it doesn't harm anyone else - no one even has to know you're doing it. Colorado (where I live) legalized weed, but there are still restrictions like not smoking in a school zone. Some municipalities have even said you're only allowed to smoke in your home. That's a lot different than taking away speed limits, which affects every single person who decides to drive a car.Liberalism recognizes that individuals have the right to personal autonomy. The US was founded on that idea. It's better to keep government small and not intrude on the private lives of citizens. Even if we assume marijuana is harmful to people who do it, the government's job isn't to ensure that people make smart and healthy decisions, so we shouldn't be limiting marijuana use unless it harms other people when you do it.Also, Pro didn't cite the sources he used to say marijuana is bad. I'll just point out that there are many medicinal uses of weed, not to mention that many philosophers and intellectuals and artists and musicians swear by the intellectual and artistic benefits of weed, too. Liberalism versus conservatism1. Pro admits that conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality. Liberalism is therefore better because it upholds the ideals of liberty and equality, which are at the heart of the Constitution and most Americans' values.2. Pro admits that traditional social institutions used to include things like school segregation, prohibiting women and blacks from voting, and even slavery. Pro even admits slavery was part of life during the "conservative era." Under a conservative framework, these traditional social institutions should have been preserved. Conservatives are the one's who argued for slavery during slavery, who argued against women voting rights when women weren't allowed to vote, and against homosexuality when homosexuality was a crime. Today, conservatives still argue for limits on sexual freedom and reproductive freedom. They still argue against gay marriage. Conservatives support the status quo, even if the status quo contains bad social institutions. Liberalism, by contrast, supports political, social, and economic reforms when those reforms are better for society. Liberalism is forward-thinking; it's progressive. Conservatism is backward-thinking -- they want a "return" to a "natural order." 3. Liberalism allows individuals with competing conceptions of the good to peacefully cooperate, whereas conservatism imposes a specific conception of the good on everyone. Prefer liberalism because it allows people to pursue their own beliefs, instead of imposing beliefs on people. Pro dropped this argument (made in the previous round), so I assume he concedes it.