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

Alright, I haven't gotten my hands dirty in a while, so I figured I would step into a debate. Should be an interesting 4 rounds. Good luck, sadolite. 1. If con doesn't show liberals defending a conservative, then conservatives hate everyone and want to oppress the entire population. a. This is a completely ridiculous burden my opponent is trying to set for me; a liberal is very unlikely to defend a conservative, just due to differing ideologies; so, my opponent is essentially asking me to do the impossible; I would propose a viable alternative to myself: instead of having to find a liberal defending a conservative in any of these absurd situations, I'm simply going to negate my opponent's claim that the entire conservative stance is hateful and should be eliminated. 1. Conservatives "hate" the poor, small children, the elderly, the middle class, and are all equivalent to Hitler. a. This general statement that my opponent makes is libelous, fallacious, and is, in and of itself, hate speech; it's obviously libelous to some extent by trying to discredit all conservatives, and, as my opponent himself states, he's aiming for the eradication of conservatism as a whole. b. This is fallacious, because he's essentially saying that any group who doesn't support liberal ideology is a hate group, when we ourselves know this not to be true; for example: parents don't always buy their kids everything they want, for example, every new toy or video game that catches the child's eye; by my opponent's logic, this means that the parents hate their children; obviously, this is fallacious. c. This is also, ironically, hate speech; he's trying to paint a picture of all conservatives as child-hating, elitist, Hitler-esque "haters"; he is being deliberately offensive, and providing this outrageous, unwarranted, extremely hateful claim, and I'd really request you to vote against my opponent's hypocrisy. 2. Conservatism is designed to oppress the masses, use discrimination, and stifle freedom. a. That's a completely unwarranted claim. b. Conservatism seeks to uphold traditional values and norms; this includes the Constitution and Bill of Rights; therefore, conservatism obviously isn't looking to stifle freedom; I can agree that (thankfully) they don't advocate absolute freedom, but, to my knowledge, neither do liberals. c. Saying that we ought to be able to fight the higher class, businesses, etc. is just high-profile discrimination on your part; it doesn't matter what class one belongs to: discrimination isn't limited to the lower and middle classes. 3. Conservatism should be erased so that everyone can get free government handouts. a. Refer back to my spoiled child example; a parent, for example, is not going to spend money every time a child wants something; in the same way, the government can't spend money on its citizens every time they don't feel like paying for something. b. Handouts are going to encourage unemployment and indigence, as people will be far more willing to live off of a government check every month than to go out and actually maintain a steady job. c. The national debt is nearly 11.6 trillion dollars [. http://www.brillig.com...]; increase the amount of free government handouts is going to increase the strain on EVERY class of taxpayer, and will only send our debt even higher than it already is. d. The last big surge of handouts and social programs like my opponent is proposing was called the New Deal, instituted by FDR during the Great Depression; however, the New Deal was considered a failure, as it did not bring us out of the depression; we still had high levels of unemployment, and a tremendous national debt (as we have now) [. http://mises.org...]; it took WWII to get us out of that depression, not government handouts. 4. Government knows what's best, and that's why people voted for Obama. a. Another unwarranted claim. b. If government knew what was best, we wouldn't have such a large international debt, and be involved in multiple wars; humans are far from perfect, so it's unlikely they'll have the answer in every situation; this certainly doesn't invalidate conservatism. c. Many people could have voted for Obama because he orates well, because he promised change, because he's got charisma, because they're uniformed [. http://macsmind.com...], or even because he's black (95% of blacks voted for Obama) [. http://wiki.answers.com...]; what I do know is, more than a few people probably didn't vote for him because of his policies. *Bonus Argument* My opponent is advocating the elimination of conservatism overall, and I see a big problem. Our first Amendment gives people the right to free speech, so long as it causes no harm; as far as I can tell, there aren't many conservatives preaching the stoning of gays or the lynching of blacks these days; so, that generally means that conservatives aren't preaching hate and violence, which generally means that their speech is protected; it's ironic, considering that my opponent is most likely liberal (his profile doesn't specify), meaning that he would ideally believe in protecting freedoms, but yet he advocates essentially robbing half of America of their right to free speech and expression.