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

Thank you skep for my first debate on this site. I look forward to more debates with you in the future. My opponent has proclaimed that I have not proven that flag burnibg amounts to treason. I contend that my opponent could not substantively debunk my claims. Instead he makes statements while offering no support for them. Further, I have given substantive arguements debunking his baseless claims. I may not have proven to everyone that flag burning is treasonous, I have given the better arguement. My opponent never denies that the symbolic message behind the act, yet he claims other meanings without explaination on how he has come to this conclusion. "it can symbolically call for a change of the entity, in this case the United States of America." "When you bring up examples of historic examples of burning the flag, this doesn't mean anything for the symbolism of burning a flag today" "Burning the flag, nowadays, carries much more diverse meanings. People can burn flag for political, social, or maybe even religious reasons. This is usually a call for change - not universal support for waging war on America." I have given examples of why and how the symbolism of flag burning represents destroying "the entity that flag represents". My opponent has no fact to back up his statements. "The genetic fallacy states that it is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context ". Right off the bat, this statement proves foolish. For how could you possibly understand the meaning of anything if you don't understand it's origin. This is Nazi speak for,"Don't listen to your elders and burn anything that might educate someone on the truth". Furthermore, the reference my opponent cites states that; "a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise)." That statement opens the door for a good debate, eh? And for the "comical" portion of his arguement; "He plays a large definition game, and in the end it seems as if he is correct. However, if you simply look at the result it's convoluted and erroneous" After this statement he makes this declaration: "By "adhering to our Enemies", the Constitution means when one helps the enemy" Well at least I used a dictionary when I played the "definition game". Again, no support offered for his claim. "my opponent goes on to say that committing any act that is against the idea of "America" should be treason" ????????? I have no idea. "To commit treason is to actually SUPPORT or HELP the enemy cause." Maybe he will offer evidence in the next debate. "To fulfill this prerequisite my opponent attempts to argue that we can "indirectly bolster the moral of our enemies" which would thus constitute helping them thus being treason" My statements were; "The act, in the very least, can give "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies.......Although this may be indirect, it does demonstrate the responsibilty we have when exercising our right to dissent." I guess I will have to explain the main reason this is important. Your observing an, act, ritual, ceremony, festival, prayer,etc.. To 'adhere' is to "bind oneself to observance. see note [1],Con round 2. The burning of the flag is an act, ritual, ceremony, or as my opponent has suggested, a religous, observance. My opponent makes a telling statement. "agreeing with the enemies of America does NOT equal treason" If you agree with our enemies that america should cease to exist, you are a traitor. Committing an act, observed by our enemies to demonstrate their desires to se us destroyed, is treasonous. "If this is true, then social progressives, people who want to change laws currently existing in America, and anyone who isn't a conservative for the most part can be considered an enemy. What if a host on TV said America sucks? Should he be tried for treason?" Again,??????????????? "My opponent attempts to equate expressing oneself to violence by using the definition "vehement". " This is not true. I equated burning the flag with commiting violence against the US. My opponent states that if one thinks that an American citizen, burning an American flag, means that that citizen wants to see the US destroyed,"that's just their ignorance or lack of clarity for both sides then. " No, my friend. Anyone who believes that a citizen who burns the flag does not harbor grave intent towards our union or our place on the world stage is in denial or purposely evading.