Government responsibility to restrict in regular the use of drugs, such as marijuana. This is about an hour and a half. Thank you all for joining us this evening for the annual libertarianism versus conservatism intern debate. I am the student Programs Coordinator here at the Cato Institute and im honored to introduce tonights event as interns go headtohead to debate is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy. Which political philosophy provides better answers to todays most important political questions . Of course, each of us have always had much to agree upon limited government, free markets, and individual liberty are pillars of the political philosophy we both value and uphold which have often led us , to the same policy preferences and conclusions. What each of us envision in a Free Society Without governmental and regulatory intrusion often does look quite different. Policy preferences surrounding foreign policy, immigration, direct legalization, sex work, emerging technologies, marriage and family. They create cleavages that emerge from differences between our political philosophies. As we have seen in todays political climate, seldom are these differences laid out through constructive, civil discourse. In recent days, the protection of free speech has been under threat by those who claim the harms of certain kinds of speech outweigh its protection. That there is more sensible approach to the regulation of this kind of expression. Tribalism has sewn skepticism and doubt into the very institutions that have brought absolute power under the rule of law. That have enshrined our inalienable human rights for the preservation of freedom. Which brings us here tonight, on this stage, as an opportunity for the exposure and articulation of ideas, values, disagreement, discourse. And debate. These interns have worked tirelessly this summer to parse out these nuanced policies through fun, logical, and rational debate. Before we began, i would like to mention a few housekeeping items. After the conclusion of this debate, join us outside in the auditorium in the Winter Garden on the second floor for a reception. Also, join the conversation throughout the debate by using hashtag you see on screen. We will be drawn your questions during the q a portion from this feed for the debate portion. If you are on snapchat, check out our special snapchat feature. If you send snapchat to catoinstitute, one word, they may be featured on social media. One important thing to keep on mind in mind is the opinions are those of the debaters and not the Cato Institute nor the Heritage Foundation. We would also appreciate your participation in our postdebate survey. You will receive this by email. It gives us a chance to express who you think are veiled and your opinion on a number of issues. In the spirit of debate, another debate, this time on whether capitalism or socialism have better benefited women, will be held here at cato september 16 at 6 30 and i would encourage you to attend or watch online. Lastly, i would like to express my thanks for our incredible conference staff for putting this event together, Elaina Richardson and Colleen Harmon of the Heritage Foundation, for their hard work, coordination and collaboration, Matthew Feeney and will for their debate preparation. Christian townsend, who agreed to serve as an alternate and provided research. Lastly, a big thank you to charles c. W. Cooke for moderating, the editor of National Review online, and the author of conservatarian manifesto. Charles is a graduate of the university of oxford, at which he studied modern history and politics. His work is focused on angloamerican history, british liberty, respeech, the second amendment, and american exceptionalism. Charles is a frequent guest on hbos realtime and has appeared on msnbc, fox news and foxbusiness. He emigrated to the u. S. And became an american citizen in 2018. He lives in florida with his family and their dog, a black lab. Please welcome charles c. W. Cooke. [applause] thank you very much for coming, thank you to cato and heritage for having me and asking me to moderate this debate. It is a pleasure to be involved in an argument about political ideas that doesnt ultimately come down to the question of whether the participants like david french or not. I think i keep being invited back to do this because other than Boris Johnson is busy now because i wrote a book on this , topic in which i attempted to tease out the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, and offer a way forward that fuses them where possible. I was not, i suspect, invited back for my predictive abilities, given that i wrote in that book that americas next president might be a quiet, retiring, humble, noninvasive kind of guy who would remove the celebrity colt from our National Politics and reduce the executive branch to the more limited role the founders imagined. Then we elected donald trump, who my colleague Kevin Williamson has described as a man with the sensibility halfway between caligula and liberace. As you will imagine my wife , doesnt allow me to place bets over five dollars anymore. This does remain an important debate, especially at this moment. Because we are obsessed with our two Political Parties and the presidency, our political culture has a tendency to flatten all nonleft ideologies into the right. The Cato Institute is often described as conservative when it is no such thing. Heritage is presumed to be on board with every libertarian innovation, when it is not. Anyone who doesnt want to vote for a democrat is put into the same camp. A good example of this was the having different jurisprudence approaches and political views, neil gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to be were assumed to be indistinguishable during their respective hearings. That tendency during the last Supreme Court term has led to great shock among legal commentators when they noticed how much they diverged, which is to say we are not here this evening to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but to ask more foundational questions, such as whether angels actually exist, whether, if they do, they should be dancing on pins in the first place, whether dancing on pins is good or bad for society, whether pins make us safer or we need more robust pin control, whether injuries sustained as a result of dancing on pins should be paid for by the pin dancers or anyone else. This is not going to be a pinfree zone. Before we start, a couple house rules. Please dont clap or boo during the debate. You can cheer and boo and throw your clothes at the end, and make sure your cell phones dont ring, and if they do, these please dont answer them. I have equipped the debaters with tasers, and they will know what to do if they are interrupted. The resolution tonight is, is libertarian or conservatism the superior political philosophy . We start with an Opening Statement from the conservative side, followed by an Opening Statement from the libertarian side, followed by rebuttals from each. Thank you all for coming. As you know, tonight we are hosted in an auditorium for economist friedrich hayek. To paraphrase his nobel price acceptance speech, if man is to do more good than harm in efforts to improve the social order, he wont shape the result as a craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment, like the gardener does for his plants. This gardener has two choices he can abandon his plants to subsist alone, shrivel up and die, or number two, the gardener can water his plants, place them in sunlight and give them rich soil so they can bloom. The point of hayeks garden is this when the government sets the right conditions the , Political Community flourishes. That is not to say the gardener will micromanager engineer his plants according to a landscape design, but he can create the environment where they produce fruit. Conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutuallybeneficial alliance. Together we have rallied support , for the free market and defeated communism, but in the tradition of the founders, conservatives recognize unfettered liberty must never come at the expense of our society and our humanity. At the heart of todays debate is a central question, what kind of country do we want to live in, and our descendents to inherit . Conservatism is a political philosophy designed to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty to the next generation by creating an atmosphere of moral virtue and law, faith, family, and responsibility. Unlike the axiomatic no sides fits all ideology called libertarianism, conservatism is a balancing pendulum with order on the one end and liberty on the other. Libertarianism ignores the tension between order and liberty. The end result is excessive liberty and almost no order. In the name of live and let live, libertarianism removes the social scaffolding around our society and the moral compass from our nation. And we see what happens when libertarians try to implement their ideals. Always and everywhere that libertarianism causes societal decay, libertarians said legalize drugs. Entire regions of this country suffered under the Opioid Epidemic. The libertarians said, the right to abortion is a liberty as fundamental as property. Abortion became available on demand. And life and liberty was robbed from 60 million innocent unborn. The libertarians said, open the borders. The american taxpayer foots the bill for ilLegal Immigration, either by forfeiting his job or his money to a larger welfare state. The libertarians said, marriage doesnt matter. Children got trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and fatherless, broken homes. Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that wants to build an impossible society, but the ideal world libertarians want is not worth striving for. It is the farthest stretch from anything our Founding Fathers envisioned. Tonight we will set the record , straight on the founders vision for america. Looking back to hayeks garden, americans dont want a broken plan of atomized individuals. We do not want weeds and briars to tear up our inherited plot. What we want is a thriving garden. [applause] good evening, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to come to cato or watch online. I want to extend a special thank you to our moderator tonight, ooke, as well as the Heritage Foundation for , coming to the lions den. As we weigh the merits of these two philosophies, we must consider, what is the purpose of government . Volumes of text may not provide a full answer, but the declaration of independence provides the best answer. Governments are instituted to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the libertarian vision for government. Simply put, libertarianism does a better job than conservatism at securing these most vital and precious of rights. Libertarians, unlike our conservative and progressive friends, recognize each adult has the right and responsibility to make decisions about how best to go about their life, so long as those decisions do not infringe on the rights of another. Libertarianism resists that most base and human desire to impose beliefs on another through force. And that through force is and that through force is essential to understand. We do not reject the fundamental importance of virtue, but believe liberty is the best means of achieving such a virtue. We recognize and cherish the vital role of Civil Society in any republic, so clearly identified by democracy in america. The imposition of moral values by force of laws not only unethical but crowds out the essential roles of Civil Society. If we abdicate responsibility to some conservative in washington who thinks they know how to order liberty or some progressive that believes they can transform society, all will be lost. A conservative who believes the government can centrally manufacture a Virtuous Society falls victim to the same conceit of a marxist who centrally plans the economy. Virtue imposed by force is hardly virtue at all. Rather, virtue must be inculcated by Vital Community institutions. True liberty, when Civil Society is allowed to flourish, sustains virtue. In thinking about good governance, we hold a lot in common with conservative friends. We believe in the rule of law and a vibrant judiciary that ensures contract and property rights, so fundamental to any free society, are upheld. We recognize the importance of a criminal Justice System that ensures those who infringe on the fundamental rights of others face adequate discipline. We believe in a military that provides for the National Defense. But we have a different conception about the limits of government than conservative friends. Accordingly, i have one request for the audience tonight. Be wary of what George Orwell would call political language throughout this debate. Make sure to consider what the true ethical implications are, when conservatives argue for certain interventions to uphold the social order. Smart drug policy means locking for choosing to put an intoxicant other than alcohol into their body. Protecting marriage is stopping prevent thoses with a different Sexual Orientation than ive from adopting a child. Protecting our liberty means propping up a despotic regime like that of saudi arabia. Lets be honest about what certain conservative principles truly entail. Libertarianism stems from a deep intellectual humility that we may not have it all figured out when we enact policy. Rather than unilaterally decide on some policy, libertarians place faith in what adam smith called natural liberty. The natural liberty that emerges when fundamental rights are protected is how best to ensure society prospers. That, not government coercion, is how we preserve life and liberty and give people the best chance at securing happiness for themselves and their posterity. Thank you. [applause] now we will have twominute rebuttals, first from the conservative side. Our opponents talked about the position of moral values, claiming that we conservatives fall to authoritarianism. We would contend it is libertarianism that backfires and invites the slippery slope of Government Intervention we all want to avoid. The problem is the individual choices that libertarians hold so near and dear sometimes produce largescale unintended consequences that can rot Civil Society and leave ordinary people stuck picking up the pieces. Drugs have not just stolen freedom from individuals. They have debilitated entire regions of this country, from appalachia to the rust belt. So when the social fabric starts unraveling, who but the government is called to stop it . That is the problem. It is the state that will get involved to cure societal ills libertarianism created, because atomizesanism individuals to seek meaning in the state. We must ask ourselves, is it really authoritarianism to protect our National Sovereignty by securing the border . Is it unjustified to deter foreign adversaries and aggression abroad so we dont face invasion or extortion tomorrow . Is it really a violation of Civil Liberties to get people off of welfare and out of poverty by promoting marriage . Is it tyrannical to want to get drug addicts off the streets and parents off drugs so children arent driven into foster care . The deceptive simplicity of libertarianism is they do not see the difference between banning black tar heroin. If we fail to care for our Civil Society and take individual freedom to its extreme and balk at the chance to save our country, the only freedom libertarianism preserves is the freedom to decline and fall. [applause] i would like to remind you all that no matter how pretty the language from conservatives is, fear mongering isnt an argument. This is a debate and we are here to make arguments. You need to keep in mind what is an argument on what is something that sounds great but isnt supported by facts. Libertarianism is supported by facts. If you look at the data we are going to give you throughout this speech, for example in regard to the Opioid Epidemic you will see that by limiting , government restriction on drugs, you do see fewer drugs, you see more people not doing drugs. That is hard data. The other important thing you need to remember is that in none of that did the conservatives tell you why the government needs to be doing all these different policy decisions. The most effective way of not being addicted to drugs is going to narcotics anonymous, going to your local church, being involved with your families and communities, to see what they can do for you. At its core, libertarianism is about the belief that freedom is something that is important. By no means is it unlimited. That would be a bad policy that is once again not supported by the data. But at its core when we look at , institutions, we believe a society can have pluralistic values. We believe religious freedom applies and extends to jews, muslims and mormons as much as christians. At its core, when conservatives talk about family values, they talk about one type of family. This is why you should prefer libertarianism as a little philosophy. We believe you should be wary of considerations the government makes for you. We dont have a lot of say in what happens in washington, what happens in our government, we do have a say for what happens in our personal lives. And libertarianism is the only political philosophy between the two of us that believes you have the ability and you have the right to make choices for your own life, your family and your communities. That is why you should prefer libertarianism to conservatism. [applause] we now move on to specific topics. Each side will speak for four minutes on that topic and there will be one minute each for rebuttals. The first topic, and the libertarians will start this one, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm . Conservatives say drugs do harm. We concede that point. Now what . The question is whether the government has a responsibility to restrict drugs, and we respond no. Lets address a historical argument. Do you know the most dangerous drug use . The Global Commission on drug policy looked at several dimensions on harm at nearly every category, alcohol, a drug deemed by the government to be appropriate for people to consume, was deemed most harmful. The United States tried to ban alcohol in 1920. Prohibition didnt work. Here are the effects it brought. A 24 increase in crime over the course of one year in 30 major u. S. Cities. A 45 increase in drug addiction that spawned the creation of mexicos oldest drug cartel. A burdened legal system, and a 50 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1920 to 1921 and a 66 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1921 to 1926. In the decade prior to prohibition, these deaths had been decreasing. Lets look at today. 14 of adults smoke cigarettes. In 2017, one in seven u. S. Adults used marijuana. An estimated 73 of the Adult Population drinks alcohol. These users are people, and locking them up for wanting an escape is wrong. If you would not lock up your buddy for having a beer, why would you ask your government to do it for you . There are different ways we consume intoxicants. Downing a bottle of vodka is different from a single glass. Banning substances does not work. It never has. It never will. And when substances are banned, the narrative surrounding the drugs ignores the human aspects of drug addiction, because banning drugs does not address the root causes of addiction. In studies on rats, given the choice between drugs or playing with their friends, rats consistently chose social interaction. Studies on humans have come to the same conclusion. When people are engaged with good communities they are less likely to fall prey to drug addiction. We have seen this before. During the vietnam war, soldiers used literal heroin. When they came home and were no longer surrounded by war and communists they stopped doing , drugs. If people are isolated like in prisons where we currently throw drug users they are more , likely to become addicts and experience negative side effects of using drugs as an escape. Drugs are about human nature. Thus, our final argument is a moral one. If drugs are bad, shouldnt you want people to refuse to use mo. If drugs are bad, shouldnt you want people to refuse to do them without anyone telling them to . Dont you want someone to have the moral character to know that drugs are bad and refused to them . It is not against the law to cheat on your significant other, but that does not mean you should do it. In a world where drugs are legal, communities are strong and resilient in the face of drug use. If someone find themselves at the bottom of the bottle, friends, families, and nongovernment institutions can help them. Many people in this auditorium know someone who struggles with addiction. Do you really think that throwing them in jail would be the right call . It should be noted that even decades of drug prohibition later, we still cannot manage to keep drugs out of our prisons. At its core, this argument is about one thing in particular when a wellmeaning person makes a mistake, the answer is not to make in the criminal. The answer is to let things like family values and Community Ethics should them the way forward. Because families and communities are better than a detached, unfeeling government. Human nature. Governments are incapable of addressing the causes of drug use. The state can only put you in a cage, and we see how that works out. Thus, the government should not been drugs. Thank you. The same question for the conservative side. Does government have a responsibility to restrict people from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm . Of the societal damage that drug consumption causes the government has a clear responsibility to restrict them. From druge died overdoses in 2017 than all the u. S. Military casualties in vietnam and iraq combined. But it seems libertarians only care about the death toll when it involves the military. Libertarians say drugs are a victimless crime. The author of hillbilly elegy certainly felt like a victim. At 12 years old, she watched her mother deteriorate from drug addiction in ohio. Upgs are the reason he grew in a chaotic and dysfunctional home and the reason why he lived with his grandparents for much of his childhood. Through his family in town into a downward spiral of therty and we can look at documentary seattle is dying to find more victims. Currently, 2 Million People are addicted to opioids. On average, 130 americans die every day from opioid overdose. Real harm, notct just on individuals, but on emilys, neighborhoods and cities. To say otherwise is ignorant of reality. This is not the society the next generation deserves. Drugs like cocaine and heroin have not liberated people, they have enslaved them. How is an individual free . To act as aontinue free agent if his cognitive faculties are under attack by the substances . Dont take it from me, take a from libertarian scholars. Soulte drugs are destroyers. When enslaved by addictive drugs, but very intention of freedoms become atrophied. Welcome to brave new world, or Human Dignity is reduced to nothing. Drugs also her children. After all, 70 of abused and neglected children live with addicted parents and they had no say in that. From drug infested homes are far more likely to struggle in school, commit suicide, or develop drug addictions themselves. Can libertarians really say that legalization will not exacerbate the situation . Of course not. Legalization wont fix americas drug problem, it will normalize it. The rules of supply and demand tell us that legalization will increase availability and cheapen prices. Therefore, leading to escalating drug use. As drug consumption proliferates global hospitalizations and traffic fatalities. The government is a social signaler, whether we like it or not, and people will follow the signals if it legalizes and the sigma ties as drugs. Our opponents talked about the failure of the drug war, mass incarceration, and the black market and how all of this points to legalization. Sure, the war on drugs has not been 100 successful. But the more on murder has not been successful either. There is never perfect compliance but do we quit because enforcement is difficult . Are we not even going to try to end the drug epidemic . The question our opponents need to answer is, will legal position make these communities better or worse . Its clear. Under libertarian laws, america will waste away. I asked the libertarians, how many teenagers need to die from black tar hair when before the government black tar heroin for the government to get involved . How many towns need to rot . This is starting to sound less like liberty and more like a slow societal suicide. Thank you. Now we have a rebuttal from the libertarians. I would first like to answer that question, legalization will make the communities better. How do i know this . Our conservative Friends Point out the drugs can harm people, you know what invariably harms people . The war on drugs that weve been waiting for the last century. They talk about the toll of the opioid crisis. Im not sure they are taking it fully seriously. We can look at the example of portugal. 2001 faced a harrowing crisis where one person of the population was addicted to opioids. What did they do . They decriminalized all narcotics. What happened . Death rates plummeted. If the United States could reach death rates analogous to portugal, we would save one life every 10 minutes. Think about what that could do for our community. Rather than locking drug addicts in cages, we could give them treatment, just like we give alcoholics treatment. Drug legalization will clearly make the community better. Thank you, and a one minute rebuttal from the conservatives. Can talk atans length about the failure of the drug war but they have not proven that legalization will make these communities better or worse. When they talk about alcohol and the prohibition, what they did not mention is that there is a selfregulating, self moderating culture in america around alcohol. After work, coworkers will head to the bar to grab a couple of drinks. Will they head to the cocaine vending machine . I dont think so. The government is just a social signaler, as i already mentioned. Drug abuse spans entire regions of the country, so when drug addiction takes over the entire community, it is not a lifestyle choice anymore, it is a disease. Portland, seattle, San Francisco are some examples of where libertarian policies like this have led. They have surrendered to drugs and they have been crippled by a. How can they say they have improved . Thank you. Our next topic is immigration. The conservatives will go first. The question is undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States. It is kind of sad that we have to debate this issue. Border security is a fundamental exercise of National Sovereignty. Any country has a right to decide who and what enters it. To say that the conservatives oppose immigration. We recognize that we are a country of evidence. That said, we further understand oft a intrinsic component any sovereign country is the ability to control its borders. Prop states undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States. They must demonstrate that ilLegal Immigration poses no threat to the country while we must prove to some capacity that it does and the evidence is clearly on our side. IlLegal Immigration immigration present a physical threat to the United States. IlLegal Immigrations are responsible for roughly 76,000 drug offenses and 50,000 souls. There is an Extensive Network of Human Trafficking associated with ilLegal Immigration threatening u. S. Citizens and migrant families alike. Gangs run amok because we refuse to enforce our laws. Our opponents will try to claim that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes and citizens, but they are usually flawed studies. The truth is, no one knows the full breadth of the legal alien crime is because we dont even know how many of them are here. Is illegal alien population far less likely to report crime because they fear deportation and when they do come forward, how are we supposed to get accurate numbers when sanctuary cities cant even report them . Every single crime committed by an illegal alien is a crime which would have never occur in the first place. This debate is not about probability, it is about a mother of three and a grandmother of six who was repeatedly stabbed and killed by an illegal alien after forcing his way into her home. Its about a 14yearold girl who in april of this year was brutally murdered by two members, one armed with a bat and the other a machete. Can our opponents seriously say that you Legal Immigration poses no threat to people like them . Of course not. It also imposes undue financial burden on the country. Now our opponents will say that open borders will boost economic productivity, but they neglect one important reality the United States has an advanced welfare system. Thegal immigrants tend to low skilled workers who easily qualify for government assistance. We estimate 11 million illegal aliens living within the United States. The average illegal alien household is about 14,000 more than government benefits than it pays in taxes. The estimated net cost on our country for the lowest estimate of 11 million illegal aliens is 1. 5 trillion. This is why Milton Friedman famously said you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. If you follow the libertarian logic of Free Movement of labor and open borders, then you are advocating the expansion of welfare. Our opponents will likely say to get rid of welfare. I find this appealing, but i dont live in a libertarian fantasy. I understand that there are political realities and that welfare isnt going anywhere soon. Another common argument is build a wall around welfare, dont give assistance to noncitizens. This is yet again politically unreasonable and morally cruel. Countries like the United Arab Emirates denied government assistance to immigrant workers. A economic powerhouse off the back of workers who represent 90 of their population but their policy has created a defective secondclass citizenry. This system is detrimental to any free society and conservatives will not allow it to happen in the United States. If youked my opponents, truly believe there is no threat associated with ilLegal Immigration and you want to open the borders, have you reconcile that with allowing criminals into the country . How many citizens and migrants need to be killed before you believe the government should do something . With an are you content expanded welfare state, or do you just want to deny immigrants government access . Thank you, now the libertarians have a chance to answer. Are as prone to rapid information misinformation as immigration policy. The human brain seems hardwired to create the economy. I president and our conservative friends know this. Lets be clear. Undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the United States. Unpackrstand why, lets the gross misconceptions surrounding the debate. Our conservative friends correctly note that the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by a small number of people, but i doubt they would welcome the similar truth found in immigration Crime Statistics and conduct policy accordingly. It is often alleges that undocumented immigrants are exceptionally violent and pose National Security threat. That simply isnt true. To trackthe only state statistics for crime by immigration status. And in texas, which is hardly a state known for its soft treatment of undocumented immigrants, the homicide conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 44 below that of native born americans in 2015. Nationwide, undocumented immigrants are 47 less likely to be incarcerated the natives. Hasacademic literature consistently found a negative correlation between crimes and immigration. We have to be honest about the statistics. Fear mongering is common. One study found that the media was twice as likely to report on a crime committed by an immigrant as compared to a native citizen. Nevertheless, the annual chance of dying in an attack by a foreignborn terrorists including 9 11 which accounts for 93 of all the terrorist deaths in this data set is one in 3. 8 million. The annual risk of dying in a car crashes one in 103. You would be a fool to suggest banning cars because they offer benefit to society. The same logic applies to undocumented immigrants and immigrants in general. This brings us to our second misconception, that undocumented immigrants hurt our economy. The truth is the opposite. The economic literature consistently find that immigration has a positive economic longrun growth and little to no effect on the real wages of nativeborn americans. Most estimates find a positive impact overall on nativeborn americans. Importantly as well, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare, so they hardly pose a threat to entitlement spending which is already out of control. Immigrantso 2009, subsidized medicare, making 40. 7 of contributions but only consuming 7. 9 of expenditures. A third common misconception is that undocumented immigrants wont assimilate. If you compare todays immigrants to the immigrants who came over from ireland and italy, two groups that nobody would ever call a threat to American Culture today, you will see that they assimilate at the same rate. Three generations in, voting patterns and self identification as an american are identical recent families. One important fact should be emphasized assimilation does not necessarily mean adopting a Heritage Foundation value. If we truly want to protect our heritage, we must continue to allow for robust immigration. With the exception of the blatantly racist chinese exclusion act, the american conception of the Illegal Immigrants do not really exist until 1924. Almost everyone in this room is descended from someone who was fleeing persecution were seeking better opportunity for their families. Those same people would not make it to america under current law. When you hear conservatives say get to the back of the line, for member that there is no line. Our Current System lacks any due process. We lock children in cages. We demonize people trying to provide for their families. Our policies make criminals out of good people. Undocumented migrants are not a threat to the u. S. Unless we make them one. And a rebuttal from the conservative side . Aree have to remember we having this conversation within the context of the status will, a world where we have order patrol and agencies like ice. What do you think will happen if we remove security measures . Contrary to what our opponents have said, we are going to see an influx of crime on the border. Should we not even try to stop criminals from crossing into our country . Our opponents are content with ms 13 killing men, women and children . Is not only affect the federal government, it affects state governments as well. 26 states steve Welfare Benefits to noncitizens. If our country is unwilling to build a wall around welfare or the border, what makes you think it is going to build a wall around welfare to mark we can talk about numbers. If we think of the additional people to come in, the government estimate of the current 11 million illegal immigrant population will cost 1. 5 trillion. What will happen to that . 100 million more people. We are out of time for rebuttal. I never thought i would hear libertarian argument expand to the welfare state. Libertarian argument expand to the welfare state. One minute for the libertarians to respond. Just to explain the welfare state, and the rents are not eligible for welfare. If you look at a country like sweden, we saw that an influx of integration lead to people in the home states of citizens voting against welfare programs they did not want immigrants in. Is it xenophobia . Yes. Take your pick. When we look at what happens in regard to policybased decisions, we are not saying there is no threat at hand. What we are saying is it is not worth it to say we are going to not allow anyone in, we are going to overextend what the threat actually is. We gave you clear data in her speech that undocumented immigrants are less of a threat than nativeborn americans. This 50,000 homicides per year from undocumented immigrants, how many are there from nativeborn americans . A lot more. Atn we address the question hand, its important to remember that we dont identify all immigrants as ms 13 members just as we dont identify all christians as members of Westboro Baptist church. In a country with a closed border out of time. Thank you. Third topic. The libertarians will start this one. Will notDefense Budget enhance american National Security. To understand the impact of a larger Defense Budget on american National Security, we should look at what we are getting with the 716 million for weston by the department of defense and 2019 irion unfortunately, nobody really knows where that money is going. Just this past november, the pentagon failed an audit that cost the taxpayer more than 400 million. Deputy secretary of defense Patrick Shanahan noted that we failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it. Anyone who believes in a Strong National defense should find troubling. Equally troubling are the many areas of our Defense Budget that do nothing to enhance National Security. You would be hardpressed to convince me that the air force spending 3000 on coffee cups or 14,000 on a 3d printed toilet seat makes a safe. Over the course of four years, the department of defense spent 294 million, the equivalent of nearly four u. S. Airports joint strike fighters on erectile dysfunction medication. Seriously, look it up. In 2016, the Washington Post reported that the pentagon buried an internal study on 125 billion of internal waste amid fears that congressman is the findings as an excuse to slash the Defense Budget. If we were talking about the department of education failing and calling it success, conservatives would not be calling for increased funding. And we are spending more to get less. The impact of this bureaucracy is stark. As former secretary of the navy lehman notes john it now takes an average of 22. 5 years to deploy new weapons instead of the quad for years it took during the cold war. Contrasting, china and russia are producing this generation ships and fighters and watch for years. And why is this . It is because our bloated budget inhibits innovation. The world that the war we fight in the future will increasingly depend on innovation. We will need more advanced technology. But a bigger budget will not improve our National Security if we keep dividing adverse incentives to keep projects low and expensive. Incentives are important. A larger budget would do nothing to streamline the pentagon bureaucracy. I have one final question that conservatives must answer to make an effective argument. If our current levels of spending are insufficient, what level is, and why . How much more do we need to be taking from future generations to ensure adequate National Security . Out. L help them on may 15, the Heritage Foundation stated that we needed a 3 to 5 increase in spending each year. By the end of trumps third term, that would be over 1 trillion. And how much safer is that going to make us . Our defense spending is almost equal to that of the next 8 highest spending countries combined, and five of those countries are our allies. Would additional spending really make the average american any safer . Ultimately, one of the best things america early is to remain the World Economic powerhouse and over funding and elaborate bureaucracy is certainly not the way to do that. Admiral Michael Mullens famously remarked that the most significant threat to our National Security is our debt. And we are not advocating to cut the budget, we are just saying dont spend more on it. In all of this, there are important point that get missed. Is it beneficial to american National Security to engage in unconstitutional wars that kill civilians . Should we be spending american tax dollars drones in the middle east . Because we are not making friends when the bomb weddings in pakistan. Conservatives must not only answer why we must increase spending, but how spending money supporting places like saudi arabia makes american civilians safer. Grandlitary has no strategy. Accordingly, we do not know what a successful military spending looks like, but spending infinitely is not the answer. Thank you. Now, a statement from the conservatives. George washington once said to prepare for war is one of the most effective means for preserving peace. States is, plain and simple, a global power global interest like protecting International Free markets, freedom of navigation on the high seas, and regional stability. We cannot protect these interests without a robust military capable of deterrence and without a Defense Budget to support it. Why must we project power a cluster of across the globe . China is gradually taking over the south china sea. Will china stop at the United States withdraws from the region . No. Iran is a major sponsor of terror. Willie run stop of the United States were to withdraw from the region . Continue told sponsor terror and it would complete their nuclear program. North korea, developing Nuclear Weapons that russia wishes to reclaim former soviet influence. Will they suddenly stop at the United States withdraws . Would seriously consider invasion of south korea and russia will continue aggression. United States Military deterrence works. Our navy has cap trade lanes open. Our brand forces overseas have deterred invasions of countries like taiwan, south korea and the ukraine. Our airport has disrupted terrorist operations abroad. The United States must project power to maintain International Interest that we are currently handicapped by budget constraints. The Defense Budget of recent years is insufficient. Our opponents has already several they mean, the United States already spends much more. However, aggregate expense is not an accurate measure of power. We have commitments across the world which our military must meet. Unlike other countries, we are not concentrated in one region. The United States navy on the whole might be larger than the chinese navy, but our navy spans the globe where is chinas is concentrated in their backyard. The seventh fleet has about 50 ships when compared to chinas 200. Are we able to effectively deter chinese aggression within the chelsea on a china sea . Of course not. We need a military capable of deterrence. Another common libertarian argument is that it would exacerbate the military conflicts but that is incorrect. Yes, there is wasting of the Defense Budget which is what conservatives have proposed policies like rollover account for defense spending and inclusion programs and when eisenhower ran the country, he was warning us of an economy driven by National Defense spending. Today, it represents 3 of the economy and 16 of the federal budget. Conservatives want to spend our tax dollars effectively, but the mere potential for waste does not negate the underlying principle of a military deterrence driven by a robust military. I have to ask our opponents, how would you seriously plan to provide for the common defense . That areally believe diminished budget and diminished military will keep United States say, for the reasons we should have that debate today because of a robust military budget . Dont sit here and tell us that you dont like wasting the budget. What is your plan for the u. S. . How much should we be spending on the military . Anyone can throw around criticisms without offering solutions. Thank you. Now we have one minute for each rebuttal starting with the libertarians. As i hear the threats raised by the conservatives im that saysf a quote he who defense everything defends nothing. Lets address why spending more money is not the best way. Our conservative french mentioned the threat that iran poses to the region but i would like to remind us that the biggest threat is proliferation. We had a deal that barred them from acquiring Nuclear Weapons. They also talk about how iran sponsors terrorism. Newsflash, we are aligned with the saudis who are also big sponsors of terrorism. Why would destabilize the region further . Additionally, they raise the threat of russia and i would like to remind them that our nato allies are more incapable of responding to the threat of russia. Russia has conducted an economy the size of italy. Finally, im not understanding how all of these commitments around the globe make us safer. For example, our aching yearlong war in afghanistan, that is not how we have improved readiness. Money,than dumping more perhaps we stop waging the war in afghanistan to improve readiness. Thank you. Now the conservative rebuttal. This isnt a game of risk or you can just pick up the pieces and restart. We are dealing with realworld threats. We are a global power the global interests. We need to play a role on the world stage, which we dont. Do you for the expected russia, china, north korea for jihadi now theo declare that United States has withdrawn its military presence, we can finally live in peace . That is ridiculous. I want u. S. Ships in the south china shipped today so there arent chinese ships off the coast of los angeles tomorrow. I want u. S. Soldiers in europe today so there is not a russian invasion of the ukraine tomorrow. What is our opponents plan . Neglect of the budget and hope people play nice. How do you plan to protect your market with iran restricts the flow of oil because the u. S. Navy is not there . We cannot effectively maintain global interest without a robust military and a strong Defense Budget to support it. Thank you. [applause] on to our final topic, just to remind you, this behind me, you can submit questions to it will i will impose to both sides during the q a question which follows, so please is that if you are so inclined. And theestion conservatives who go first on this one. Final topic, is the decline of marriage necessarily a bad thing . Marriage is anof extension threat to the United States in principle and in practice. Married inicans were 1960, and only about half are married now. But it does not take statistics to understand that marriage is one of those rings that gives life meaning. Since the dawn of civilization, some kind of eric has existed. If a support system, a Solid Foundation to build a life upon, and an escape from loneliness and in many cases, poverty. It is thehat, Building Block of society, the bedrock of civilization, and the vehicle by which we care for the next generation. It also turns out that marriage is americas latest weapon against welfare dependence and child poverty. Because of a lack of economic stability and the psychological parenthood, the erosion of the institution of marriage is detrimental to children. According to the u. S. Census, the poverty rate for singapore parents with children in the u. S. In 2009 was 37. 1 , while the rate for married couples with children was 6. 8 . Children with only one parent are less likely to finish school, more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and more likely to commit violent crimes. Over half of incarcerated youths are from singleparent homes. Thisst ask ourselves, is the future we want for children . Of course not. Children need parents. Where else can libertarians expect to get their generation of innovators and finds without parents to guide them . The fact is, marriage is the best model for raising leaders and good citizens. How can we justify nine children and the tried and true environment properly . I ask our opponents, why are you so to experiment with childrens livelihood . Not to mention, marital decline earnings of through a larger welfare state. Instead of finding a thousand, many people are marrying the american taxpayer. The overwhelming majority of benefits to families and children goes to singleparent households. That resulted overreliance on government assistance which has deprived children of the love and security they would have received from two parents. Michael Brennan Doherty argued it was a culture of fulfillment and convenient that replaced the traditional meaning and led to the dissolution of his parents s marriage. Marriage showed that is not just a lifestyle choice or a contract for a tax break. Children depend on it. It is something we can do right now to save the institution of marriage. Conservatives understand how to Balance Limited government and the crisis of marriage. Our opponents will say that we want to micromanage marriage. But it is just the opposite. We dont want welfare to take the place of the family breadwinner. We dont want people married to the government. We want people married to each other. A good step in the right direction is removing the penalties against marriage inherent in the welfare system. And ending the subsidizing and incentivizing of single parenthood. Given all this evidence, we cant give up on marriage. We simply cant afford to. Thank you. Now, an Opening Statement from libertarians. There is a rich and vibrant history of conservatives in the decline of marriage in our country. At various points in history, conservatives have stated that to ownht for women property, womens suffrage, interracial marriage, and samesex marriage would all undermine the institution. Alas, here we are, and the institution of marriage has survived. Nevertheless, conservatives, who are always quick to note that support for limited government are a steadfast as ever in support for government interference in marriage, and the essential question what considering the decline of marriage is necessarily a bad they is what the government should do about it. Lets examine conservative policy prescriptions. As we do so, keep another question in mind. Ofh er which passed era marriage would conservatives wish to return us to . Conservatives often implicate samesex marriage as a key factor contributed to the decline of marriage. There is nothing ethical about preventing such a marriage, and doing so actually harms the teacher of our country. The academic literature has consistently found that children raised by samesex parents fare just as well as children raised in traditional marriages. , would love for conservatives and nba player reason new jersey by two mothers, how a father is required to instill masculinity in a child. Another policy proposal favored by some conservatives is limiting nofault divorce. Nofault divorce allows a spouse to terminate a marriage without showing fault by the other party. Conservatives argue that nofault divorce cover myself the institution of marriage. Someone propose ending nofault divorce or married couples children. Yet such a repeal that not only be harmful to mothers, but also to the very children who it would aim to protect. Marriages that should be terminated would injure and the social Science Literature has shown that parents children born to high conflict marriages are actually worse off than those born to single parents. Although marriage may be preferable to single parenthood on average, only once blissfully divorced from reality could argue it is better prepared to remain together in a conflict ridden household and separate. And under a repeal of nofault divorce, mothers would invariably be heard. States that introduced femaleral divorce than suicide decreased by 8 to 50 , Domestic Violence decreased by 30 , and spousal murder decreased by 10 . Make no mistake about it, the repeal of nofault divorce laws that many conservatives favor will lead to the death of mothers. Such a proposal is a textbook case of the treatment being worth the cure being worse than the cure. For one, they devalue the institution that conservatives cherish. Consider the marginal marriages created. Together onlyive by financial incentives providing a healthy environment for their children . Besides, a cursory glance at history illustrates why governments have no business interfering with such social values such as ones choice of partner or religion. Conservatives would greatly benefit from absorbing is wisdom. It is not the role of government to regulate marital choices. Of private domain individuals and associations including churches that favor traditional marriages. Role ine should play no distorting one of the most fundamental choices of any individual, the choice of partner. It essentially wrong for the state to choose your partner for you. Thank you. Our opponents mentioned alternatives to traditional marriage, the fact is that the arrangement of traditional marriage is the bestknown environment to raise your children by every metric. Biologically and psychologically speaking, children dont need parenting, they need mothering and fathering. And our opponents claim that these other arrangements for arengs raising children probably superior, but i find that interesting because the logical extension of exhibit isism as that parents should not even be coerced into feeding their children, let alone raising them. At that point, i think the familial structure is probably irrelevant to libertarians, but it is not to us. The libertarian rebuttal . Who did not of you china last year, we publicly disavowed her last year and let us do it again, he has horrible ideas. I would like to remind you throughout they give. Notink of the children is an argument. We need to look at why it is happening, and that is because people are getting married later in life because they think it is an important decision that should have some thought behind it, and that divorce rates are going down. While divorce rates peaked in the 1980s, we are seeing them lower now which is still higher than the 60s because there was nofault there was not nofault divorce which is when you saw all of the bad side effects. Fundamentally, this is an argument about choice. Itriage today is about love, is a fundamentally different institution, it is probably good for children, been giving you great data. But at its core, when we look at what the governments role should be, it should not be involved at all. Because you know what is best for you, you know what is best for your partner, and you should teach her children together. Sectione now at the q a and im going to post the first question to libertarians, either of you. You have two minutes for this one. You said in the segment on drugs that liberalizing drug laws would help in that it would lead to fewer people with problems, fewer addicts. There was also a moral case made for doing that, not locking people in cages. That we dont see the response that you proposed, and we do see all sorts of horrors. Where does that put the moral case . I love morals, they are great. It would put us in a difficult situation. I concede to the conservatives that there are some cases where drugs can destroy agents and agency is super important. But at its core, if we look at the data not on whether people get addicted, but on what is the most effective way to get them not addicted, we have seen a really good success in regard to aa and na. There are systems put in place that are not run by the government that help us determine what is the best solution for combating addiction. And addiction is something really difficult. No one is disputing that. But when we look at what the policy prescription should be, its important to remember that ethical and effective policy goes hand in hand. We look at important things, and we are saying, what is the best way for the government, and institution with a legitimate we say, what and happens if we put the government in charge of something . What would the government realistically do to addicts . Involve someably penalty and with Something Like addiction, when your choice is taken away, it might be that your first cigarette was something that you chose, but your second or third probably wasnt. As the government said that they were going to penalize addiction, then that is a bad policy because you are not penalizing people for something outside of their control. So the response to addiction is always going to be something involving rehabilitation. Its always going to be something that engages communities because as you look at the data about what helps addiction, it helps people to be involved in communities and no matter what way you try to in things, the government is not a community. Thank you. And a related question for the youervatives given what have said about the effects of drugs, how strongly is the case for banning alcohol or cigarettes . Cigarettes are addictive. Why should we ban marijuana but not alcohol, given that there is some evidence that one causes many more problems than the other . Libertarians often cite marijuana as the winning case and i have to concede that it is more compelling. However, it does shrink the size of your brain, that is important to know. The thing about alcohol is that it fdr administration deemed on a costbenefit analysis, the the of prohibition exceeded benefits of prohibition. I were fighting a war and as mentioned earlier, it was an established convention in American Culture to casually drink alcohol. That is not the case with black tar heroin or meth, ultimately, you could argue that alcohol has imposed greater societal harm. You can look at traffic fatalities, hospitalizations. In by far takes the cake. But this is about aggregate harm. If you had a hard drugs into that equation, legalize those, what will the aggregate harm be . We acknowledge that alcohol in poses great harm on society. But what else will happen if we also legalize meth and heroin and cocaine . Thank you. This is a question for both. Beuld social Media Companies permitted to sell their users data . Libertarians first. Yes. They should be, that is a market operation. If you consent, that is the key. Let me clarify that one again. Social Media Companies are private companies. The government should not tell them what they can and cant do with their market. Even though it makes us feel icky when it happens, if you read the terms and conditions, you did agree to it. So. And there are Market Forces that prohibit the most egregious uses of data, people push back against those egregious uses of data. Conservatives . With theally agree libertarians, these are private companies that are allowed to do what they will with peoples contracted way of information. They are allowed to create better targeted ads. Fun,just a general move a whatever you put online is going to stay online. Companies right now, they are not posting data that they are not posting data that is unreachable, it is something we put on there and we should have the expectation it is going to stay there. A question for the conservatives what would you say is the most serious social problem that the state is incapable of successfully addressing . Thats a very good question. [laughter] you can blame the hashtag, not me. [laughter] i honestly would say the decline of marriage. Whether we like it or not, no nation is meant to injure forever, andndure this is an existential threat to our civilization and the United States at large. Marriage rates are really, really low. I talked to my parents, i talked to their parents, it is just a situation that we havent seen before and we have to ask ourselves, why is this culture of convenience and selffulfillment so pervasive and should weve reassessed that moving forward . And a question for the libertarians, what nongovernmental institutions does libertarianism need to exist for libertarianism to thrive . A lot of libertarians say we dont want the government involved. Is it a freefloating ideal, or do you need a set of preconditions . Is lots of different types of libertarianism. If you ask a virtue libertarian, they would probably say the church because that is what those people happen to have, the ideas just happen to be in accordance with your average church. If you ask a libertarian that is probably more of a classical liberal, they might say some sort of education system, it might not look like our current education distance, but it might be someplace where you go and maybe it is a Charter School or a private school. Its not an easy question to ask or to answer directly because theres a lot of diversity within the Libertarian Movement about what sorts of institutions are good, once should be keep around in support . And then a question for both sides, two minutes each. Should the government regulate pornography . Conservatives first. The government should most definitely ensure that a little pornography is only reserved to audience that are ages 18 and up, but privately such as child photography, yes, but government should clearly be forgetting that from entering the marketplace because it would be corrupting minors and people are unable to give consent. Yes, the government does have a role in assuring that that type of pornography does not enter the marketplace. Libertarians . We will concede that child pornography causes harm to children. When you look at the larger question about pornography, it is really complicated. If you want a good case that it, you should look at the u k and see what they are doing with their laws. In 2014, there was something called a protest outside of Parliament Near christmas time because the u. K. Used a bad piece of legislation from the 1970s to ban a lot of different sexual acts, one of them was facesitting. You had members of the pornography Community Come out and an act that in order to illustrate that it was not functionally different from other pornographic acts that were allowed on camera. So, when it comes to whether the government should regulate pornography, i would say in theory, you might have reasons why the government should. In terms of Something Like is ane porn, it absolute violation of privacy. But when you look at the practice of pornography overall, it becomes really difficult because first of all, theres a lot of data and the government is not equipped to handle that. The second reason is that when you look at what banning porn does, it is normally not overall ban. Normally advance specific types that end up adversely affecting minority groups. So, certain sexual acts on women are not allowed, certain sexual acts on men are allowed. And that is just something that should not happen, frankly. The externalities involved with banning porn are really complicated and any government should think through their position carefully before they attempt that. This is probably the first debate in the history of the United States at which we have mentioned both Milton Friedman and facesitting in the same discussion. [laughter] [applause] what is the proper role of americas military in the world . What should we be doing . The best way to look at it is the difference between isolationism. In isolationist and being interventionist. The key is to provide for the National Defense. Whatever it takes to provide for the National Defense and respond to threats appropriately. And a question for the conservatives, you were accused earlier of wanting to put people in cages. Is mass incarceration a problem in america and if so, what is the primary solution you would propose . The reference about putting children in cages, i would like to point out at the border, i hope its Common Knowledge by now, but the reason that is happening, is because of a loophole in our laws, in our Border Security laws. Did is essentially mandated that children be separated from their parents at result, theyd as a are separated from their parents at the border and go to separate detainment facilities. The solution there is to close the loopholes. We disincentive i migrants from making that treacherous journey through central america, through along, buying children the way because they know it improves their case either to claim asylum or get admittance through other claims. Fleet immigration aside. Do we have too many people in prison and if so, what do we do about it . I mean, the fact is that crime deserves incarceration along the spectrum, depending on what the crime is. I dont believe in mandatory minimum sentences, personally. But in terms of greater crimes, more severe crimes, what is the alternative to incarceration . Because you committed a crime, the punishment is due. That is the legitimate recourse. A question for both, we will start with conservatives. Should the u. S. Support the organization of nato . The United States most demolition support nato because it is one of the greatest turning forces of the later half of the 20th century. Weve been able to deter not only the soviet union, but russian aggression and i know they are have concerns today about certain nato countries not meeting their military expenditures, but that does not mean we should not support the institution or that we should withdraw our support from it. Or that we should diminish our military spending as a result. And it a force for good is a corner piece of u. S. Foreign policy. Should absolutely supported. Libertarians, do we support nato . It has had ant Important Role particularly in the 20th century with the soviet union and continues to do so with russia. We might have a point of disagreement over the subsidization for we are subsidizing much of the defense of European Countries when they are more than capable of fending for themselves. We also might disagree on what it should be used for. For example, intervention in libya has essentially created a failed state in libya and propagated terrorism and that was a nato operation, so we might have points of disagreement there. The final question is a tough one, but an important one especially given our present debate. Libertarians can go first. Should the United States government pay reparations to the descendents of slaves . There is no easy answer to this and i think you are not going to get a great one from either of us, frankly. This country was built on the backs of slaves, there is no way around that. The way that we have historically treated people of color is awful and there is probably something that we morally need to do about it. When you look at the issue of ,eparations, it breaks down to how do you provide reparations in a way that addresses all facets of this complicated issue . There is not a good way to do that. There have been certain things proposed in regard to giving all descendents of slaves a grant. If you want to know why this roberte a good idea, nozick probably supports reparations in this way when he talks about stolen property. If you want to read anarchy utopia and talk about concepts and the way that property gets exchange rightfully, he might give you an answer to support that. There are other ways where we talk about supporting institutions and i have not given it a lot of thought on my personal opinions on this issue. Disagreement, of theres a lot of really good points raised on all different sides. I think one thing that i can say with certainty is that our country really needs to about the way that we treat all members of everyone who lives regardlessborders, of their circumstance because we are all stuck here together and we could definitely treat people better. Thank you. Conservatives . First off, slavery, obviously its a terrible institution that left many people at a disadvantage. At the same time, it is not the role of the government to ask every single historical injustice. A better way to address the issue is to try to get communities who were affected off a long cycle of government dependence and i think one of the greatest reasons as to why particular the Africanamerican Community has had difficulty progressing past slavery is because they have become reliant upon the government a stop of old democratic policies from the jim crow south. I think reforming the welfare state and reforming how we is ass these communities far better solution than redistributing wealth from a generation who did nothing to inflict slavery upon people. Thank you. The conclusions, we are going to start with a four minute conclusion from the libertarians, we are going to have a four minute conclusion from the conservatives. Other way around. Throughout this debate, we have demonstrated that we should all be conservatives because we should ultimately want to be more like the libertarian ideology is focused on the short term. Demand individual autonomy in the present. Conservatives think in the long run. He looks to the future because he does not subscribe to the position that in the long run. He understood that a narrow view of the president yields disastrous results in the future. The same is true for politics. Our opponents for given drug addiction will liberate you, but we know that drug addiction will enslave you. Substances have laid waste to entire regions of this country. Drug legalization would be a surrender, not a victory for liberty because drugs condemn not only you, but your children and your community and your posterity. Youopponents told you that Legal Immigration poses no threats to the United States, but we know that it undermines our basic sovereignty. IlLegal Immigration provides a real threat to citizens and migrants alike and open borders will burden us. If we do not secure the border and a future americans cannot call themselves a sovereign nation anymore. Our opponents told you that are present on the world stage creates chaos, but the world is safer with american leadership. Military dependence military deterrence upholds international norms, protects free markets, and ensure the ultimate security of the nation. Only through a strong Defense Budget can we maintain the military capable of meeting challenges. Without military strength, we will leave her children at the mercy of foreign powers. Our opponents told you that the decline of marriage should be no cause for alarm but we know that it will rip the Building Blocks of society right from under us. The gradual dismantling of marriage inhibits the prosperity of children and denies them stable upbringing. State levies a tax on her children. We should promote the family units reforming health care system. If not, future generations will be helpless against an unraveling social fabric and a deteriorating civilization. Libertarians and their dogmatic devotion to absolute economy is destructive and leaves our future where liberty will be snuffed out. Conservatives understand that absolute autonomy does not yield absolute good. It can in fact, harm the liberty. Conservatives believe government alternately exists to Serve Society and country, but is restrained and guided by respect the fundamental liberty. We are not born into this world as individuals, but rather something greater than ourselves, our families, local communities, and country. Conservatives want to fight for the Civil Society so that our children will be able to exercise and pursue happiness. If we blindly follow absolute economy today, we do so at the expense of our Civil Society tomorrow. If we blindlymy libertarian cold think more like friedrich hayek, in the long run, and you will see that a free Society Needs a Civil Society. The namesake of this auditorium understood that western civilization depends on its traditional and moral practices. In order to preserve our fundamental liberties, we must uphold Civil Society. Family, community, and country. Therefore, only conservatives and can guarantee that the torture of liberty the torch of liberty will continue to burn brightly. Thank you. [applause] this is a debate about political philosophy. Else, the best political philosophies are consistent in their application of moral principles. What does it look like to apply those that use . As you seem throughout this debate, not all families are considered good enough conservatives and theres aviously not going to be white line where we need to do away with some institutions. You have heard them cry wolf on the destruction of marriage, just as they do now. Have heard how conservatives certain intoxicants while giving alcohol the exception because somehow it makes more economic sense. You have heard conservatives say that the department of defense is above reproach when it comes to government waste in regard to incentives. And fayean look at me inconsistency by itself isnt a problem. The real world needs Real Solutions and sometimes these require compromise. You, thesee shown conservative inconsistencies brief tangible harm. The libertarian position remains consistent. Policies should be founded on choice and prioritized accordingly. We use data and we dont continually strawman our conservative friends. The main difference is that the libertarian world would give you a choice to be a conservative. The conservative world would deny libertarians. In the libertarian world, you can still preserve family values and religious institutions. The conservative world imposes conservative beliefs on its citizens and uses state sanctioned force when individuals peacefully dissent. And heres why. At its core, libertarianism breaks down into a few procedures. A strong belief in the importance of freedom and a skepticism surrounding government institutions. Even freedom is the idea that i am free to do whatever i wish as long as i dont violate the readable under individuals. A skepticism surrounding government institutions is just that a skepticism. There are cases where the government can ethically and effectively engage in policies to preserve freedom. However, our modern government does so, so much more than that. In doing they have declared us isolationists who want to see communities fall and advocate for policies. Thats not what libertarian is. Libertarian empowers individuals and community they ought to pursue. Our legal system is founded on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions, that people can choose to do the right thing. It prioritizes freedom. Freedom is more than this. Whatever your inspection of the good is, even Something Like making it your goal to walk in alligator across i95, its important that people freely choose to pursue it. Its the most important part of being a good person. We dont want people to do the right thing because someone told them to. People should do the right thing because they want to be a good person who does good things. When you put your trust in institution, you diminish personal responsibility. Libertarian missing only one that prioritizes moral choices and community. Thats why you should believe in libertarianism as a philosophy. [applause] take ant have to alligator across i95 in the afternoon. We are right to the end. If we can have a round of applause for both sides of the debate. [applause] sharpheard some disagreements. True fashion, we will come together with the existential threat that is posed by my threeyearold son, who is auditioning to behead tyrant at the irs. Away his brothers toys, he said im helping him not have them anymore. That raises the hackles of conservatives and libertarians like talk like that. Thank you so much. If you had outside, you will be plied with alcohol. [applause] please give it up one more time for our debaters. [applause] another huge round of applause for charles cook. If [applause] there are libations outside the auditorium on the first and second floor. I hope to see you all there. Thank you. [applause]