Flag Desecration should always be legal

I shall negate the resolution, "Flag Desecration should always be legal. " ===================== Burden of Proof: As the Instigator and Pro, my opponent has the Burden of Proof to affirm the resolution. If I can prove otherwise, the resolution shall be negated. ===================== Definitions: Flag Desecration- term applied to various acts that intentionally destroy, damage or deface a flag, most often a national flag. . http://en.wikipedia.org... should- implying a morally binding duty or obligation. . http://www.debate.org... (The definition is provided by Cody_Franklin in his first round argument) always- at all times. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... legal- permitted by law. . http://dictionary.reference.com... ========================== Notes: 1) The flag desecration mentioned in this debate will solely apply to America, for my opponent brought up the Constitution of the United States and the President of the United States. 2) As made clear by my opponent in the Comments section, my opponent shall uphold the position that flag desecration should be legal in all circumstances. I shall negate and argue that flag desecration should not be legal in all circumstances, or simply, that flag desecration should not always be legal. 3) All I have to do is prove one instance where flag desecration should not be legal, and I have negated the entire resolution. =================== I shall quote my opponent and make several points: "I would never burn a flag. I feel like it is completely disrespectful and immoral. If you want to burn a flag, I would respect you that much less. If I saw you burn a flag before you interview for a job with me, your chances of getting the job are very slim. However, should the government outlaw flag desecration, I don't care if you were the president, you are not getting that job! " My opponent shares his dislike of flag desecration, but yet his position for this debate is supposed to advocate flag desecration. My opponent's rant intertwines both sides of the debate and is extremely confusing. ========================== First Amendment: My opponent attempts to justify the acceptance of flag desecration by stating that it is protected by the first amendment because it is an expression of speech. However, my opponent is mistaken. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Certainly there are occasions where speech is restricted; the most simplistic example is the prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But other forms of speech have also been outlawed. Certain forms of obscenity, threats and libel are forms of speech which have been banned. Hate speech is another form of illegal speech. Hate speech can be very vague and subject to interpretation. The flag is a unique, identifiable symbol. Protecting this specific symbol is actually less restrictive than banning language which may be construed as "hate speech. " Clearly, my opponent's point does not hold water. ============================= My opponent must also prove that there is a moral obligation to keep flag desecration legal. The word "desecration" implies that the flag is sacred. Keeping something sacred implies a moral obligation to maintain it, not desecrate it. My opponent needs to provide evidence that people have a moral obligation to keep flag desecration legal, even when the term "desecration" implies that the flag is sacred, and needs moral obligation to make flag desecration illegal, instead of legal. ============================= Here are several instances where flag desecration should not always be legal: 1) A group of people gather in front of the White House, bringing thousands of American flags with them. They begin to burn all of the flags and create a huge bonfire to throw the flags into. This lasts for several minutes, until one of the flags on fire falls onto dry grass, and flames begin roaming around and circulate the White House. Within seconds, the entire White House is caught on fire and completely burnt. Due to the immediate spread of the fire, thirteen people in the White House could not get out of time and died. This action of flag desecration would be illegal because it led to the destruction of the White House, the killing of thirteen innocent people, and an eventual riot from many patriotic Americans. 2) My neighbor goes in his front lawn to burn an American flag. My little sister is sleeping in a chair in the front lawn, and gets struck by hot sparks from the neighbor's burning session. The sparks are so hot that they burn my sister's skin, melt away her flesh, and she dies within minutes. This instance of flag desecration should also be illegal, since it led to the death of an innocent person. ======================= In conclusion, my opponent has failed to reach his Burden of Proof. I heavily urge a Con vote. I await my opponent's response and thank the readers for the opportunity. Thank you.