Liberalism Or Conversativism: The Future

After my other debate, this is a refreshing change. I suppose I would like to address the social issues before the economic ones. But first, I will provide some background on conservatism that I believe is important. I think your view of conservatism is largely correct: "Slow gradual change, with implementation, because the world is fine as it is. " In this case, conservatives believe in a slow change in morality and in government. We are firm believers that the past contains golden gems of success that we should implement in order to be successful ourselves. One of these golden gems is the Judeo-Christian system that has made our nation possible. In fact, without such a religious people I doubt our nation would have survived to this day. I also believe conservatism becomes inconsistent (along with many other things) if a Biblical worldview is removed (even though there are many secular conservatives). This is why atheists and secularists are more likely to be socialists and communists. Out of this worldview, there is another precious gem that emerges: liberty. Conservatives value the principle of liberty above nearly all other values. We should have as much liberty as possible until it conflicts with the liberty of another. Since conservatism is based on a Biblical worldview in which we are discouraged from forming idols, we are opposed to making government larger than is necessary. Not only does this always crush our liberty, but it also makes us reliant upon it instead of God and ourselves. Thus, large government is both a practical and a moral issue. Of course, because of this, conservatives believe in the importance of personal responsibility, meaning we suffer the consequences of our own bad decisions. Such is just, and such is moral. On the other hand, we believe private institutions should provide most of the support for those who truly tried but failed. There certainly should be a safety net, and we would prefer not to take the government's net. This is because privatization is always more efficient, and turning to the government unavoidably diminishes our liberty and our personal responsibility. Liberty and freedom should be more important than comfort or safety. This is why Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " Since conservatives believe in personal responsibility, we believe, if a person is unwilling to work, that person should starve. If a person is willing to work but cannot provide, we should then step in. Lastly, because conservatism is based on a Biblical worldview, we believe that we have certain inalienable rights that are given to us by God, not the government. The government is not he source of our rights, nor does it have the power or authority to give us new rights. It is the government's sole job to protect these rights that we already have, no more, no less. When the government stops protecting our God-given rights, it has lost its sole reason for existing and must be destroyed. Under this worldview, all rights are things that we already have; things that the government cannot take away. This includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to bare arms, etc. Because rights are given to us by the government, the government does not need to provide us with guns in order for us to have the right to bare them. This also means healthcare cannot be considered a right; a right cannot be provided by the government, only by God. If we did call healthcare a right, that would simply mean the government should not prevent us from buying healthcare ourselves. It is not the duty of the government to do anything other than secure our rights, it doesn't need to be large at all. Obviously, while much of the above is debatable, much of it also depends on a Biblical worldview and other presuppositions. For example, if someone believes safety is more important than freedom, there wouldn't be much of a bridge for us to debate that fact. Now, because that foundation has been laid, my desire is for all who are reading to truly understand where I am coming from when I apply conservative principles to specific issues raised by my opponent. Gender: Since conservatives have a Biblical worldview, we generally believe in two sexes and two genders that absolutely cannot be changed. Fortunately for us, this point can be shown without any appeals to religion. "Liberals like me believe humans are delicate-fragile individuals" Yes, this is a major difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives value personal responsibility and truth above the fragility of others. This does not mean that we should be rude or try to offend people, but we do not compromise the truth, even if it may offend someone. This is why conservatives are inherently opposed to the SJW agenda which is fueled by being offended. We also believe gender roles are both practical and the natural way of life for most men and women. Obviously with societal or governmental pressures, this natural state might not occur, so we should remove those pressures. Society nor government should encourage or discourage gender roles. This way, people can have the liberty to decide for themselves. Nazism: "Most far right wingers from Nazis and Fascists believe in superiority over other segments of society, which brings me up to this next point. .. ." Nazis and Fascists have always been far left, not far right. Nazism is just a leap away from communism which is extremely far left. Fascists throughout history have always been leftists. Just look at Antifa. While they call themselves anti-fascists, they are fascist themselves, which is why they are an official terrorist organization. Antifa is opposed to everything conservatives stand for because fascism and Nazism are opposed to every single one of the conservative values that I outlined. They are both leftist, pro government, against freedom, secular, and against liberty. Superiority of some people over others is not a conservative principle since conservatives have a Biblical worldview. All people are regarded as equally valuable under the eyes of God. On the other hand, under a liberal, secular worldview, what justification do you have for the equality of all people? Racism: "It is proven that racists all of kinds, especially far right ones have a hardwired fear of accepting other aspects of society. " I will admit that those of the alt-right are on the "right" (not as in correct) side as opposed to Nazis who are leftists. On the other hand, they are not conservatives because they also do not value the principles I outlined above. Most are against the constitution, against God's word, and against liberty. They may be right-wing, but they are not conservative. "Similarly religious folk have deep insecurities, they hold their holy texts dear to them, not recognising the state of the world around them. " And those religious texts that you dismiss are the only things that have made a nation like this possible. If you want to remove them, you are going to cause a lot of blood and misery in the death of the values that make our country great. Sexuality: Our high view of liberty means people should be allowed to express their sexuality in any way (unless it harms others). Of course, as conservatives, we believe the modern sexual attitude is extremely destructive and unwise. It will lead to the breakdown of our families and the breakdown of societies. This is why the state of the family is the single biggest predictor of national prosperity. I can't speak for all, but most conservatives are not afraid of gay people. We simply don't believe it is conducive to a successful society. We also don't believe it is the government's job to be in the marriage business in the first place. I am at the character limit, so I will address. ..