Burning the Flag of the United States of America Should Be Legal.

First, I did not equate the act of tossing a ring/breaking off a marriage with treason. Nor did I confuse "treason" and "dissent". The act of throwing the ring conveys a universal message to everyone who's society embraces the use of the ring as a symbol of love and commitment. Just as burning the flag conveys a universal message to any state which uses a flag as a symbol of the state and a marker of it's territory. I did not say the two particular acts convey the same message. The second part of his argument is curious but unconvincing. My opponent suggest that even though an act may have had a certain meaning, it does not neccessarily convey the same meaning today or hold the same meaning in the future. I concede to this statement. Let me contend however, that the act in question, the burning of the flag in demonstration, still holds the same symbolism today as it had in the past. The flag is the symbol for the entity it represents. Destroying the symbol in demonstration can only convey the message of the desire to destroy, or the want of destruction of, the entity in which that flag represents. My opponent has suggested that, true as it may be of the meaning of the act in the past, to continue to hold this truth would amount to a hypothosis called genetic fallacy. This hypothesis is deeply flawed and smacks of National Socialist propaganda, which is why it truly makes no sense and can be easily dismantled. I only hope my young friend listens to his elders before determinig whether or not he knows better. After all, what if; "My parents been telling me that 1+1=2, yet my teacher, Bill, says 1+1=254"? Does the teacher posses more weight because he may be consider the "expert", regardless of the fallacy of his claim? The ring still represents "ownership" although it may be polliticaly incorrect to say. As Skep will discover when he gets older, he will eventually start looking at the ring finger of the the girls he might like to talk to in order to determine whether she "is TAKEN". Futhurmore he may be put off by the presense of a ring because the subject may have worn one to convey a message that was not true in order to be left alone. She is single, yet her message is that she is taken since it would be impossible for you to know she is actually single. I have not claimed that "everyone who burns the flag is saying 'attack America'". I am saying that if somone has a message other than the desire to see an end to an entity, then one ought not destroy the recognized symbol of that entity for it does not convey any other message. The remaining arguments made by my opponent can be juxtaposed with the first argument that I have not yet addressed. My opponent correctly states the definition of treason as defined in Art. III of the US Constitution. >>>"consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"<<< I aim to prove that burning the American Flag constitutes, by this definition, treason. "adhering to our Enemies" The definitions of adhere, revelant to this discussion are: 1: to give support or maintain loyalty. 4: to bind oneself to observance. [1] To show support may indicate that you give support. An act that is used by our enemies to convey a message that is universally associated with that act would demonstrates support and loyalty to at least the message. Definition 4 is more compelling in my opinion. First the definition of obsevance. Observance: 1: to conform one's action or practice to. i. e. the rules [1] [2] 3: to celebrate or solomnize (as a ceremony or festival) after a customary or accepted form. [1] When one burns the flag, they are demonstrating observance to a practiced which is universally known to be the manner in which our enemies demonstrate their desire to see the destruction of the U. S. , i. e. adhering to the enemy. The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies. The use of images of our citizens conveying the same message as they, can be used as a recruitment tool and bolster the moral of our enemies. Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent. My opponent claims that "As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage", it does not constitute treason. This is narrower than the definition in the Constitution, but it still does not disqualify flag burning in demonstration. Violence: 1a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. b: an instant of violent treatment or procedure. 3b: vehement feeling or expression. [1] Certainly, it is safe to say that the act "exert[s]. .[a]. .physical force"(fire)in order to "abuse" the symbol. And the "expression" is certainly vehement. Finally, I agree with my opponent that "it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO". This is actually my point, Skep. It is not " the people behind the burning who decide what the message is". It is the people who receive the message who must interpret what the message means, and act, based on how they interpret the message. For instance, you see a co-worker standing down the hall. You want this person to come to you. You convey the message by mooning him/her. It should not come to a surprise if the person turns away in disgust. It is illogical to claim that you only wanted the person to approach you when your action promotes an entirely different message. The burning of the American flag should not be tolerated because the act serves no other purpose than to promote the destruction of the United States; and under the definition of treason, as set forth in the Constitution, and in the court of common sense, the act is encompased. notes: [1]Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1969 [2]I added as alternitive to (rule)