Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country

Well, it seems like we live in a world in where smoking and drinking make a great debater. My opponent claims that 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." In my second round, I clearly put the conservative lifestyle. So, my opponent's attack should be ruled as irrelevant. My opponent claims that I have not provided sources when I have clearly gave books as sources by very respectable authors. My opponent on the other hand has provided nothing but Wikipedia links. On top of that, my opponent tried to make an analytic claiming that George Washington did not think of the bible when he was about to lie. You can read the book that I provided a link too that shows what Washington's thought process was. Since, my opponent's analytic was wrong it should also be counted as a lie, because my opponent said something about a subject that she was very na"ve in. This proves that my opponent not only made an analytic without knowing what she was talking about, but this proves that she can be very untrustworthy about what she is talking about. Also, she makes another analytic of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates not becoming rich because of their upbringings, but because they were just geniuses. This analytic also should because Bill Gates says in his book that "their was a time in where I was not doing well in school, and my mother told me that if you wanted a better life you better start studying or else no college is going to accept you and you are going to have no house and no friends". If his mother did not say that than we would not have Windows. We would not have the innovations that we live with today, and for my opponent to say that Bill just got their because he was a genius is absurd and her analytics should be ruled as untrustworthy. My opponent also makes another critique on my argument on the absence of a conservative lifestyle in poor black neighborhoods as racist. My opponent makes another untrustworthy analytic on something that is just proving that if black people used conservative methods in their lifestyles they would be wealthy. I provided evidence of Ben Carson who was also raised in Detroit, and his mother raised him up on conservative principles and he became a self-made doctor who graduated from Yale. My opponent's burden of proof should be ruled as irrelevant because she herself is responsible for making untrustworthy analytics and you can find in the rebuttal that I have put clear sources on everything my opponent wanted. My opponent argues that I have communism and black people isn't relevant to this debate. Pro hasn't offered any connection between his arguments and the debate topics. Pro offers no evidence that poor black are liberals and rich blacks are conservative. It seems that my opponent's argument is based off of the laziness of not being able to read an argument right. My opponent was making the case that conservatism brought slavery, women not being able to vote, schools segregated, and homosexuality as a crime. I offered connection by stating this "By using my opponent's logic, communism embraces Stalinism and will always evolve into Stalinism. Communist governments kill there own people if there people revolt. Stalin killed Christians who celebrated Christmas. This is a byproduct of Communism. This is the logic you would support if you were won by my opponent's argument. Sharing communism's name with Stalinism is a horrible idea because it is a lie itself." To any educated person this simply means that my opponent is blaming conservatism for the things that humans did themselves. Communism was supposed to be fair share, but Stalin killed his own people. Are you going to blame communism for the deaths of Russian lives. This is why my opponent's logic doesn't work. Her basis was a logical fallacy. My opponent than tries to claim that poor blacks are liberals and rick blacks are conservative. No, that is not what I said. I provided the crime rates in young black males. I simply said that the problem was the family. It had nothing to do with being liberal. All I was saying was that if they embraced a conservative way of life, they would be better off. I provided an example of Ben Carson who was raised in Detroit. My opponent's attack was based off of misinterpretations which makes my opponent untrustworthy in her ability to interpret an argument. My opponent also argues my evidence is anecdotal and therefore unreliable even when I provided all of the books that were sources for my anecdotals in the rebuttal. This is only proving that my opponent's attacks are in the foundation of misinterpretation. I placed a couple of examples, because they were a lot more of them and I couldn't list them because I would run out of characters. My opponent blamed me of examples when she only finds one person that did not have a family. So, her argument would actually be more irrelevant than it already is. My opponent attacks the examples I gave by saying that they identify themselves as liberals. My case was that they were raised off of conservative values. My opponent's argument is based off of misinterpretations of my arguments. I don't even think that my opponent read my arguments. I said they were raised on conservative principles. My opponent blames me for having no burden of proof when she makes analytics about things that she doesn't know. My opponent tries to refute evidence that was provided by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. My opponent claims that her IQ went up 8 points when she started smoking, when another more reliable source. My opponent's argument is irrelevant because her experience should not be upheld by a judge because her own personality would have bias to liberalism. My opponent does not cite any sources for her case on Marijuana, that is why it is irrelevant My opponent also makes the case that I did not cite any sources when clearly I sited National Institute of Drug Abuse, which means that there is a serious problem with the way she reads arguments. 1. I do admit that conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality, but what I am saying is that the conservative model works and you can just look at the various examples of how it works, while my opponent still wants an untested model to run. 2. My opponent also says that conservatives have backward thinking and that I admit that slavery was in the conservative era. But, my opponent's argument has a big logical fallacy because she blames conservatism for slavery. I pointed out that by using her logic Communism brings in torture because Stalin used torture. Stalin just represented communism, he didn't speak for the ideology. It is in just human nature that we this. It is evolutionary. You can't blame an ideology for doing that. 3. My opponent says lastly that liberalism allows people to pursue their own beliefs, instead of imposing beliefs on people. I have provided examples that prove that this is a much better route. If you want to be a liberal, than that is fine. The resolution is Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country. My opponent just assumed that conservatives wanted to feel that way. I represented examples of black people in Detroit that were raised in the conservative lifestyle and became very wealthy. The conservative philosophy can produce a better country. If you don't like it, than that is fine, but look at the examples that I have provided. People that have made extraordinary benefits to America. They all were raised on the conservative philosophy. Vote for a better reality. Vote for the side that knows what they are talking about, and does not make analytics about things they are na"ve about. Thank