The problem with that line of reasoning is that progressivism, by definition, keeps changing and conservatism, by definition, does not.

Conservatism, at best, comes up with new ways of justifying the same tired canards underpinned by the same fixation with conformity, power and hierarchy.

That means it's not a debate, just a rehashing of rehearsed prejudices... so why would someone whose ideas are evolving in response to current matters want to "debate" someone whose underpinning assumptions are anachronistic from the get-go and anchored very firmly in the past?