I don't really know quite yet.

Ok, I will accept that we are not asking if it is currently legal or not, if that is all that you meant by that argument. I wasn't sure if you were going for more with that so I wanted to make sure I responded to it. "IF there are flags that are toxic to the environment the regulation would be against burning toxic substances, not the flag. Burning the flag would still be completely legal, so long as the flag being burned was made of non-toxic materials, which if such a regulation was passed people would, if they are not already, make flags of non-toxic materials, at least for protest purposes." This is unresponded to, which means even if its true that burning flags are bad for the environment, that argument still doesn't support the resolution. Also, my opponent claims it is bad for the environment, without any proof they are, or even that those specific chemicals are actually bad for the environment, absent that this argument is nothing but an assertion. Moreover, there are numerous other ways to counteract the harm from the chemicals released if its proven they are harmful. For example, making non-toxic flags for protest purposes. "if there was a more ecological way of doing it then this would not make it bad." That's a solution that would make it ecological. Or requiring protesters to also do a certain act that would counteract any negative environmental effect. Finally, IF there is an effect on the environment it is most likely so minimal that freedom ought to be considered more important. This debate is not about the environment, nor should it be. This argument to me seems an extremely weak way to attempt to prove the resolution true. I will continue arguing this if you bring it up again, but I would much rather actually debate the issue. Onto the other argument. "So by not having our flag flying, this shows us that we no longer have our freedom. So because the flag symbolizes freedom, if our flag is burning, then we might assume that we no longer have our freedom." If you make that assumption it is a foolish assumption. IN THE PAST, the flag was lowered to show surrender. That is no longer the case, so people will no longer make that assumption. Second, burning the flag in protest is not a military engagement, and has nothing to do with an actual conflict(outside that the protest might be about a military engagement). That also means people will not correlate those two together, outside being foolish and unable to realize the obvious difference in the acts. "ake the statue of Saddam Hussein as an example. This statue was a representation of the oppression he had on his people. By taking Baghdad and lowering the statue, it was a symbol of the release of the Iraqi people from under his rule. The same goes for the flag. Without it, we have no symbol of freedom." The flag still exists, not the one burned in protest, but there are many other flags still flying symbolizing freedom. Second, its not the same thing as with the statue, which was destroyed as a symbol to the Iraqi people that they have their freedom restored. Burning the flag in protest is an action that can only exist in a free society, being able to do that is as much a symbol of the freedom of our society than having the flag flying. Freedom is meaningless absent the ability to use it. Third, why do we need every flag to stand for a symbol for freedom? And why is that the only useful symbol that a flag can stand for? Burning the flag in protest can be very symbolic as well, such as in protest of an action done in the name of that flag that those protesting believe goes against what the flag is supposed to stand for. "They don't burn it to inspire." What do you think a protest is for? It may not be to inspire them to be patriotic, but the idea would be to inspire people to support their cause and express their opinions of the issue being protested. This is inspirational, and in a more meaningful way be inspiring people to stand up and exercise their freedom. "we don't have all freedoms. Some freedoms are restricted in order to help others. I say that burning the flag should fall under one of these because it hurts others. For the people who honor the flag and view it as the symbol of our nation's freedom, this is seen as a hurtful act intended only to cause strife and uproar." It doesn't harm an individuals rights, which is all the government ought to be regulating. And if you allow the government to regulate all actions that could harm someones feelings the government would be an extremely totalitarian entity that would be far from free. "You say that it is a peaceful form of protest, but here I present the argument about history. By burning the flag, you are saying that we should throw off our form of government and are sending a message of mutiny. Just like a flagbearer throwing the flag to the ground symbolizing defeat, so burning our flag symbolizes detest at the nation it represents. This is not peaceful. This is much like a declaration of war. Saying that your country is worthless. So this isn't a peaceful form of speech." It is possible that some protests that burn the flag could be intended to encourage violence. The action that is illegal in this situation is insighting people to violence, not burning the flag, which means burning the flag is still legal under this argument. Second, people protesting are usually protesting a specific issue they have with government policy, not the overthrow of our entire government, but the change of one policy. That is not violent, it is an expression of our freedom to protest and express our opinions. Third, even if they do want to overthrow the government, I think you have forgotten how this country was founded, by overthrowing a government the people found oppressive(and compared to the taxes and regulations today our government is more controlling of our lives than the british empire was). Im not suggesting we should overthrow our current government, but we have the rights in the bill of rights to protect us from our government, and if necessary, to fight against it if that government violated our liberty. I stand by my original argument, that burning the flag does not harm our rights, but is an exercise of those rights, which should be protected in a free society, and not be illegal.