Liberalism will make future conversation impossible

My stance is that Liberalism will make future conversation impossible. IN round #1 CON must state by what pronoun or list of pronouns CON should be addressed. Also in round #1 CON must list any and all triggers that CON wishes to avoid. CON must also delineate the boundaries that CON wishes to install, As well as any and all roadblocks CON needs. CON agrees to denounce all faults CON may have even subconsciously. CON must identify all democratic candidates for President that have or will have announced. CON must avoid all aggression, Macro aggression, Micro aggression, And sexism, Racism, Elitism, Confusion and. . . . . . Have I made my point?

That is a very well constructed straw man you have presented. To quote Christopher Hitchens

"I'm still waiting to hear the argument"

Liberalism is an idea. The tenants that people draw from them are just abuses of the concept and do not actually align with liberal values.

Identity politics is prejudice and therefore, Does not conform with Liberal values.

Triggering is not a liberal thing, It's a generational thing. False attribution.

The rest of things you said were just part of a narrative constructed from your opinion about the average character of people who subscribe to liberalism. The people are not Liberalism, They're just supporters who may or may not have good character.

So your argument fails because it's not Liberalism stopping conversations, It's people.

I would start round 2 by saying that this debate has to be taken with a sense of humor, However CON did not list his, Her, Or its triggers of which humor may be one.

CON also failed to state by which pronoun he, Or she or it wishes to be addressed, So PRO shall use the gender neutral "ZE".

CON failed to list ze"s triggers so either ze has no triggers or everything triggers ze. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing.

CON failed to list ze"s boundaries. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing.

Ze did not list ze"s roadblocks. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing.

Ze has neither catalogued nor denied ze"s faults so again we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing.
Pro has detected aggression, Macro aggression, Micro aggression, And sexism, Racism, Elitism, And Confusion in ze"s round one arguments.

ZE then states. . "Liberalism is an idea. The tenants that people draw from them are just abuses of the concept and do not actually align with liberal values. " Ze here shows that liberals draw abusive actions from the concept of liberalism. The actions do not conform with liberalism. Actions such as the creation of the Berkley Liberal Fascist Movement certainly support the growth of non liberalism from liberalism. As ze says it "Does not conform with Liberal values" Yet it was not the conservative students who rioted at Berkley.

Ze states "Triggering is not a liberal thing, It's a generational thing. " My experience is that it is more associated with the left than with the right.

Ze then says "So your argument fails because it's not Liberalism stopping conversations, It's people. " That is my point exactly". It is liberal people who are making conversation impossible.

Okay, So you're not rebutting my position. Your rebutting a fictional position that you constructed that is not liberalism. If you're not going to take this debate at least half serious, Then there's nothing I can really say, Because you're just going to keep spitting out your fake liberal narrative. So what's it gonna be?

Due to glitches in this website, My round 3 argument has been posted in the comments section. Kindly go there and review.

Also, You may want to look at another debate I have up called "the website debate. Org has serious problems. . . . '

Once again. You're just attributing qualities of individuals with liberalism.

There are plenty of people on the left who do not agree with PC. Or identity politics in general. Me being one of them. Liberalism is about allowing personal freedoms. Not imposing restrictions on them like you're suggesting.

I would say good debate. But you never actually debated me. You debated straw me.