Conservatism is a much better route to achieving a better country

I'll start with definitions. Conservatism emphasizes tradition, natural law, and moral hierarchy. It opposes rationalism and expresses a preference for longstanding prejudice. [1] [2] Liberalism, on the other hand, emphasizes liberty and equality. It supports rationalism rather than the historically inherited. [3] [4]Arguments1. Conservatism is often at odds with liberty and equality. Preserving tradition would limit freedom by banning same-sex marriage, criminalizing marijuana use, and placing limits on sexual freedom and reproductive freedom. In fact, many conservatives want to return to earlier times, when women couldn't vote, schools were segregated, and homosexuality was a crime. The US is better off promoting liberal values instead of retaining longstanding prejudices against women, blacks, and homosexuals.2. Liberalism allows individuals with competing conceptions of the good to peacefully cooperate, by organizing the political order around neutral ideals like freedom and equality. This is especially good for our country, which is characterized by a pluralism of reasonable yet incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs. Furthermore, most Americans support ideals like freedom and equality, so liberalism aligns more closely with the values of everyday Americans.3. Liberalism promotes political, social, and economic reform. Liberals strive towards improving society. Conservatism, on the other hand, strives toward keeping society the same. Liberalism is thus better for our country because it strives towards improvement. Rebuttals1. Pro argues that the traditional family unit is the best. Specifically, Pro argues that "behind every self-made person there was a family that believed in them and inspired them." Pro doesn't offer any sourcing for that claim. I'll offer a counter-example: Frederick Douglass. http://en.wikipedia.org... Frederick Douglass was a slave who was separated from his mother as an infant. He then taught himself to read and, after escaping from slavery, became a leader of the abolitionist movement, standing as a "living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens." Frederick Douglass is not only a self-made man who didn't have a traditional family -- he is one of the most extraordinary and inspiration human beings to have ever lived. He was also black (a group my opponent doesn't seem to have much respect for).Pro also gives three examples of self-made conservatives: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and George Washington. First, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable evidence here; there could be so many other factors besides being conservative that led to the success of Gates, Jobs, and Washington. Second, Pro admits that Jobs grew up in a "left-wing" household, not a conservative household. Pro states Jobs "followed conservative principles." But Pro offers no sourcing or evidence that Jobs was a conservative or that he grew up in a traditional conservative family. Pro also offered no evidence that Gates was conservative, so I have no way of checking Pro's claims. Likewise, Washington. I can't argue against claims unless I know where they came from. Plus, even if these anecdotes are true, they don't prove anything about conservatism generally. Most of these people became successful for reasons totally unrelated to conservatism. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were geniuses with computer software and business. George Washington wasn't great because he followed the Bible. George Washington was great because he was a great general, a founding father, and the first President. 2. Pro argues something about black protesters, the jail population, and Ben Carson. Honestly, I have no idea what Pro's arguing. I just spent 10 minutes trying to decipher Pro's words and this is what I have: "black people who lack conservative values go to jail, while rich people with conservative values get richer." I might be giving Pro too much credit here, but the argument appears to be: conservatism produces rich people; anything else produces criminals. There are like 20 million problems with that argument. First, lots of rich people aren't conservative. Second, lots of conservatives go to jail. Third, lots of blacks who go to jail are conservative. Fourth, Pro offered no sourcing or evidence for his generalizations about rich people and black people. Fifth, anecdotal evidence about a dude named Ben Carson doesn't tell us much about conservatives or black folks generally (again, the story lacks sourcing, so I'm hard-pressed to even believe it's true). Sixth, Pro's argument is racist and racism is bad for our country. I'll stop there.3. Pro also argues something about liberalism. First, Pro says liberalism "is a new model and it has never really been practiced in the US." Pro's just wrong -- liberalism dates back earlier than conservatism and is at the heart of our Constitution -- but since the point isn't relevant to the debate, I'm not gonna belabor it.Second, Pro goes back to the "blacks have not embraced a conservative lifestyle and look what happened" argument. Again, this argument not only lacks any sourcing or evidence but it's also profoundly racist. The fact that blacks are arrested more often than whites doesn't tell us anything about conservative values. If anything, it just speaks to a racist criminal justice system, or to the fact that blacks generally occupy a lower socioeconomic class, or the fact that they experienced years of oppression (slavery, segregation, etc.) for which they are still suffering. It also points to the fact that drug laws are fucked up and should probably be changed.NOTE: Yes, I'm using profanity in a debate. Please don't take off spelling/grammar/conduct points for that. The words reflect opposition to conservatism and are therefore rhetorical tools.References:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.constitution.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...