The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

Nothing more diverting on a long afternoon then contemplating a man in women's shoes. I will response in the order that my opponent did. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On "all A's are B's" & the king analogy: While amusing in some respects, my opponent's analogy falls short in a number of ways. First of all, I'm not arguing that "all a's are b's. " Nor am I arguing that a government who takes away your rights will make you appreciate them more. Clearly, my bringing up the devastation of the P. A. T. R. I. O. T. Act negates this possibility, since the government has been slowly siphoning away our civil liberties for the past 8 years. If this were true, then we wouldn't have lost those civil liberties in the first place. However, if a government wields enough fear rhetoric, we've seen that it can successfully eliminate, over time, huge chunks of our rights. My opponent had nothing to say about any of my arguments regarding right to privacy, or habeas corpus, or due process. These rights, unlike the right to display a Confederate flag, are much more easily dismantled in the situation we found ourselves in. Hence, we've given up piles of rights, and have hardly noticed (in general terms). The banning of the Confederate flag, however, is a horse of a different color, and is much more noticeable & distinguishable, even through a blizzard of national security rhetoric. Breaking through this false wall of "keeping us secure" is paramount in order to maximize our civil liberties, and banning this particular icon, as proven in my RD 1 post, is an effective way to do it, since banning the Confederate flag has little or no relationship to national security, while other civil liberties may be rationalized away by the "need to keep us safe. " Second of all, the entire process of banning the Confederate flag vs. monarchical dictatorship is incomparable. The people will find it far, far harder to rise up against such a king. My advocacy presents a clear path to improvement of society using installed checking mechanisms like freedom of assembly & the Supreme Court. My opponent's analogy provides a clear path to a king in high heels, wading around in Jell-o. (I know…I took liberties with the actual use of the Jell-o, but it's funnier that way) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the limiting of one right leading to the limiting of others: Speaking of logical fallacies, my opponent has argued here that slippery slope will lead us down the path of doom. First of all, note the resolutional issues at the top of my RD 1 posting. "The government" has little to do with this, insomuch as state or federal legislatures are not banning the Confederate flag: voters are banning the Confederate flag. My opponent did not refute this, so that complicates his slippery slope argument significantly. Since "them" is simply other American citizens, I'm forcing open clash and resolution regarding rights BETWEEN CITIZENS, which is what changes democratic societies. Without open clash about segregation, slavery, women's suffrage, freedom of expression, etc. , we wouldn't enjoy the freer society we have today. Open clash about rights has, and will, continue to be the best way to maximize discourse about those rights. Second of all, slippery slope is a logical fallacy. While there are extreme cases of historical scenarios that appear "slippery slope-ish," the chronology of events doesn't necessarily dictate direct causation. For example, when Hitler took power in Germany, he had some ultimate goals in mind, one of which was the extermination of the Jewish people (as well as several other types of people). As he gained political power, he was able to realize that ultimate goal with more and more restrictions on Jewish freedom. However, the ultimate goal is what informed each restrictive step, not the step before it. Finally, my opponent is being extremely hyperbolic. To propose that this single ban will lead to a universal lack of rights is unrealistic. How many things in the United States are currently banned? How many bans have we imposed, and then lifted? The US is a progressive nation, empirically. We also have no laws that cannot be undone. That's a key tenet of the representative democratic process. He gives you no reason to believe that this one ban will lead to the end of the free world as we know it. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.