Flag Burning. Decision to Address This Issue upon the Majority view of people to support it.

My opponent begins his round by clarifying, " I didn't state 'responsibility for patriotism' but responsibility for respecting the symbols of freedom and Democratic ideals of the Forefathers of any country." Still, I disagree with this statement. We don't have a responsibility to respect anything except for other people's rights. People can worship, parade or value the flag as they please, and so long as I let them do that, I am acting within the legal parameters of the law. Con asserts, "This is where you steer wrong. How can one feel patriotic by desecrating the very thing that they should stand for?" No my friend. This is where YOU steer wrong. How can you stand behind the flag saying that it represents freedom, if you don't agree with my freedom to burn it if I so choose? The flag is just a piece of cloth with no inherent meaning. Any value we apply to the flag is man-made with different implications and connotations (sometimes none) depending on who you ask. I can very well feel patriotic by burning a flag if I feel that by burning it I am exercising my right to be free and free speech. Perhaps for me, the burning itself is what makes me feel patriotic - not the flag. Because I'd be acting within what the law is supposed to stand for, my point has been affirmed. Next Con states, "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a LIVING THING. Would you burn a living thing? Would you burn your most valuable possession?" This is a ridiculous assertion. First of all, the flag is NOT considered a living thing. It is not alive; it does not have the attributes of something that is alive. Even what it supposedly represents is not literally alive. My opponent's source for his quote is not factual evidence, but rather an opinion from someone else. Therefore, it means nothing in terms of credentials for his stance in this debate. In order for his point to be valid, he would have to prove that the flag is literally a living thing. He obviously can't do that. Second, in then asking "Would you burn a living thing?" my opponent is committing a fallacy in suggesting to the audience (1) that the flag is indeed living and (2) that I would burn a living thing. He's drawing a connection where there isn't one. Moreover, the flag is by no means my most valuable posession. In fact I highly doubt that anyone would consider a flag their most valuable posession. If they did, they'd probably be lying. Con next states, "The only way one can truly feel patriotic when burning a flag is when it is being respectfully retired, with ceremony and due process." Ladies and gentlemen, you'll notice that this is his OPINION and therefore has no relevance in this debate. He continues, "My opponent states that flag burning is not 'inherently disrespectful'. I am, obviously, of a different opinion." That's fine. He can have a different opinion and state it; that's the beauty of this country. However it doesn't make his OPINION any more right than mine. He notes, "The flag represents that which thousands have fought and died for. A free nation, a symbol of peace and integrity. Yet, with the flick of a lighter, such representation can be snuffed out and turned into a charred, disgracious mess." Again, that is what the flag represents to HIM - not to everybody. Con continues, "Yes, it is exercising one's rights to burn a flag, but is it a respectful way? No. Is it a patriotic way? No. Often, people can find more effective and respectful ways to protest." Sure, maybe. But that's for the individual to decide what is the most effective and appropriate means for them. Often times people burn the flag specifically to be controversial, as the seemingly drastic implications draw a lot of attention to whatever it is that the burners are trying to get across. In that case, burning the flag would actually be the most significant form of protest that they could do to bring notice to their cause or point of view. That is precisely what we have to respect in this country -- not the flag itself. I completely disagree with Con that, "By burning the flag, one seems to be wishing for the disintegration of a free, responsible, moral and hardiness of society." In no way, shape or form does Con prove that this is the case (nor could he if he tried). One has absolutely nothing to do with the other; this is a blatant fallacy. The flag does not inherently represent morality in any way. Con writes, "It seems that the person is abusing his/her rights by desecrating the flag... the protester is willing to sacrifice such important symbolic objects in order to publicize what could very well be an insignificant protest." Uh, sure? Why would the protestor want an insiginfiicant protest?! That would completely defeat the point. Not to mention that one is NOT abusing their rights by burning a flag, but as I've already stated, exercising them explicitly. Con's argument in this debate is extremely weak and hypocritical. For instance, he says "Oftentimes, the flag burner is not expressing patriotism, but a lack thereof." This is completely contradictory. The only way burning a flag would represent the opposite of freedom would be if one were PUNISHED for burning that flag. If one truly believed in a lack of freedom, then they would be disagreeing with their right to burn that flag in the first place. Clearly that's not the case, so this point doesn't even make sense. My opponent posits that one can protests while still being respectful. I don't disagree with him. However, the intent behind flag burning for most people is not to blatantly offend another individual. Further, this debate isn't about right and wrong but rather one's *legal right* to burn a flag. You'll notice that Con has provided no sufficient reason why flag burning shouldn't be LEGAL. Simply by saying that it should be illegal because it would be offending somebody is obviously a terrible argument. To quote wjmelement's forum signature, ""It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright." -- Murray Rothbard Con submits the final "argument" that initially the pledge of allegiance was supposed to say "I pledge allegiance to MY flag" which is obviously irrelevant to this discussion. Who cares? First of all, it's been changed so obviously did not maintain the status quo. Second, nobody is required to say the pledge. The pledge does NOT represent the sentiments of all Americans. Regardless of what the red in the flag stands for, all of my arguments stand: We are not responsible for respecting the flag itself, and we have a legal right to burn flags in most cases (supposing that the flags belong to us, etc.). Furthermore, flag burning is not inherently disrespectful as disrespect is usually not the intent, and additionally not the standard norm (not everybody "respects" the flag). The flag is not alive. What's important is retaining all of our legal rights and having the freedom to express our opinions however we see fit, even if others consider it "disrespectful." To never be considered offensive is an unfair and almost impossible paradigm. Regarding this debate, my opponent's only sources are biased and irrelevant blogs along with Wikipedia. I didn't feel that any sources were necessary in this debate; it wasn't about facts but rather an exchange of opinions. However since I've been criticized in the past for not using sources -- even if I didn't need any to support my case -- I'll leave you with a few more credible and unbiased sources which help depict my point of view. They will detail things like the first amendment laws of the U.S., and how flag burning fits within those parameters. Thanks, Con for this debate. -- http://www.law.umkc.edu... -- http://law.suite101.com... -- http://www.esquilax.com...