Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies

===Deconstruction of Pro's case===Def. of Conservatism. Pro has decided to introduce a completely new definition of conservatism this round. While in the last round he portrayed conservatism as a general commitment to liberty, in this round he portrays conservatism as a mish-mash of various different models. Besides not showing how religious/social conservatives actually square into the "liberty" interpretation (Pro merely says they do without argument), Pro's entire (new) conception of conservatism is little more than conjecture. No actual line of reasoning is ever presented. Pro has merely said that X is conservatism just because. Traditionalism. Pro's conception of what traditionalism actually is is also badly flawed. In order for something to be traditional, it doesn't need to be some sort of religious truth. Pro seems to entirely ignore my pragmatic traditionalist point from R2. Traditionalism can have two meanings (both encompassed in conservatism): religious and pragmatic. Pro is correct in describing religious conservatives as traditionalist but ignores the other form, pragmatic. Conservatism in this form is traditionalist in that it sees no reason to change what has worked in the past. Tradition is pragmatic and thus in need of being conserved. Pro is essentially setting up a straw man here. Pro's claim that economic conservatism and national defense can't be explained by mere religious truths is correct perhaps, but it need not be in order to be correctly categorized under traditionalism. Def. Of Libertarianism. Obviously liberty has a logical limit. Otherwise it would simply be self-defeating (i. e. , someone would have the liberty to undermine another person's liberty, etc. ). Pro has failed though to show why things like prohibitions on same-sex marriage and other non-aggressive activities is something necessary to protect the liberty of others. The "tradition" thesis of conservatism can easily accommodate this belief though since it the gay marriage issue resembles a mere example of the conservative opposition to non-adherence to tradition. (A) Pro hasn't actually forwarded an argument here. He merely quotes someone who agreed with him. Moreover, his point here is demonstrably false. Tradition qua tradition isn't necessarily at odds with liberty, but it's not necessarily compatible with it either and that's the thesis Pro is tasked with defending here and has thus far failed to do so. Restrictions on same-sex marriage and adoption is merely a single example of tradition incompatible with individual liberty. See point B for full refutation of Pro's attempted reconciliation of these two. (B) I really don't feel like getting into all the reasons why Pro's points are wrong but I suppose I'll get in troubs or dropped arguments if I don't respond. First, Pro's point that marriage is recognized as a union between a man and a woman doesn't matter if conservatism really operates under the "liberty" framework since the traditional def. of marriage would only matter to those operating under the "tradition" framework. I count this as an admission on Pro's part. Second, the research paper Pro cites is completely at odds with his conclusion. The paper claims in the "Conclusion" section: "This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. "Moreover, Pro in no way shows why simply being "outperformed" (ambiguous enough) is a legitimate argument against same-sex unions for two reasons. One, being outperformed doesn't suggest that children raised by homosexual parents are in any way negatively hurt by virtue of their parents being gay. What I mean is Pro hasn't shown why it's specifically their parents being gay that causes them to be "outperformed" and not at all merely a result of the more negative societal attitudes presented against children of LGTT parents. Again Pro's own source is a great help stating that:"the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses"Second and more generally, Pro's source only claims that there is empirical difference. It doesn't lend credence at all (and in fact explicitly argues against the idea) that homosexual parents are somehow uniquely unqualified to raise children. Conclusion. Conservatism and libertarianism base themselves off of different foundations which manifest themselves in some similarities, completely outweighed by the differences. Libertarianism is best described as commitment to liberty. This is shown by the fact that it's the most broad account of self-described libertarians from the utilitarians to the natural rightists to the more left wing factions. Conservatism on the other hand, while usually paying lip-service to liberty and in some instance happening to come to its defense is itself founded on traditionalist principles. The justification for this stemming from a holistic look at self-described conservatives, they are best grouped under a common foundation under the tradition thesis, from religious conservatives with their commitment to religious tradition to pragmatically minded conservatives with their commitment to what's worked in the past. Conservatism and libertarianism happen to connect in some instances but by and large the differences are too great.