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

1. Liberals defending conservatives a. Yes; I agree that the resolution is clear; the resolution clearly does not AT ALL imply that I must find a liberal defending a conservative; this is simply a burden that my opponent is trying to unreasonably assign to me, and I've previously proven that this is a burden that I in no way must meet. Honestly, if it's liberals accusing conservatives of "hating" children, the elderly, and the middle class, it's highly unlikely that any liberal is going to challenge these accusations, and even less likely because these allegations are coming from his/her own movement. b. My opponent has still failed to explain away his fallacious logic, and has failed to prove how disagreeing with liberal ideas is equivalent to hate; this, as I explained earlier (and keep in mind that my opponent never addressed it), is actually very contradictory of my opponent to claim that conservatives are hateful, yet has packed his position full of hateful rhetoric over the elimination of the entire conservative movement; it would seem that my opponent himself is filled with hate, not conservatism. 2. Conservatives have defended liberals. a. Let's take a look at this blog: Yes, this conservative, Bill O'Reilly, absolutely is defending a liberal accused of racism and hate; yet, let's take a deeper look into my opponent's source: The title of the article is "Bill O'Reilly Defends Barbara Boxer and Proves He Doesn't Understand Liberal Racism"; the entire article is definitely anti-left, and declares that O'Reilly's defense puts him on the "margins of the conservative movement"; so, according to my opponent's source, this conservative was an idiot for defending the accused liberal. 3. The sources a. My opponent misconstrues my argument yet again; recall what I said in Round 2: Not that the sources are wrong 'just because'; my opponent made the claim that, because the sources were unchallenged, and because there were a lot of accusations, that this must make his claim true; I pointed out both of the fallacies inherent with this kind of argumentation (the negative proof and ad populum fallacies, respectively); so, my opponent is essentially attacking a straw man at this point (yet another fallacy), as opposed to actually explaining why his argument is based on sound logic; obviously, he cannot explain this away, because this argument is NOT based on sound logic. b. I did provide one such example source to show that numerous accusations aren't necessarily to be taken as truth. If you want a more complete list of sources, beyond me telling you to google "liberal hate", then I will provide a few: http://jimunro.blogspot.com... http://www.boston.com... http://www.boston.com... http://mensnewsdaily.com... http://www.conservapedia.com... b. As we can see, plenty of sources, including the ones my opponent presented, obviously have a liberal bias, which explains why they take out-of-context quotes, pokes at the opposing party, and light-hearted humor as "conservative hate speech", just as the sources I've provided (like Conservapedia, for example) will have a bit of a right-wing bias to them; conservatives are not quite so hateful as my opponent would have you believe; the credibility of the sources is diminished by the fact that this is merely a tradition of political mudslinging; both sides, obviously, will try to discredit the enemy as much as possible by finding any little quote that can be taken against them, and using that to full advantage; you can see this kind of mudslinging just by turning on CNN, or FOX, or MSNBC, or perhaps the Colbert Report or the Daily Show. 4. Lawsuits a. My opponent once again beats around the bush here, and he doesn't respond to my argument that he is merely making an appeal to probability by saying that, because they could file lawsuits, that they inevitably will; he also disregards the logical warrant I've presented: Because the comments are often directed at the entire conservative movement by such a large number of individuals, filing such a tremendous number of lawsuits would be expensive, time-consuming, and overall, exhausting; so, to file all these lawsuits would be very difficult indeed, which could be one explanation for the lack thereof; another explanation can be taken from before; liberals accuse conservatives of hate speech, racism, etc. just as much as conservatives accuse liberals; it all goes back to the political mudslinging that everyone in the political spectrum resorts to in order to get ahead. 5. The idea of a "liberal hate" debate a. I'm not at all turning this into a "liberal hate" debate as my opponent would claim; again, he is merely attacking a straw man here. What I'm saying is that, there are accusations on both sides, and most of that, as I've repeated on many occasions, is just political mudslinging. b. My opponent also misconstrues one of the key arguments - his hypocrisy; as I've said, my opponents likes to accuse conservatism of preaching hate and violence, but as I have shown through logical construction, and he has completely dropped, he is guilty of the very thing of which he is accusing conservatives, and I have postulated that it might be he, not conservatives, who is filled with hate in today's round, as evidenced by his posts containing extreme anti-right rhetoric. Also again, note the many dropped arguments. I do not wish to list them again, but the list remains constant from Round 2, as my opponent has chosen to drop them completely. With only Round 4 remaining, I have little else to say, now that my opponent's multitude of fallacies has been exposed, many of his opening arguments are dropped, and the new arguments that pop up have been refuted for the time being. I believe that by this point, the voters have probably already decided who to vote for; but, perhaps the tables will be turned one way or the other, so I'll stand down for my opponent one final time.