Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't.

1. CON: I don't see where an insult to the government or the citizens of America warrants an arrest and amendment to the constitution." PRO: I do. * CON: That means nothing. Prove it. -- 2. CON: People who protest the government are thrown in jail in countries like China, or hitting more at home with America's plights, Iraq or Afghanistan. PRO: True. * CON: So you're agreeing with me. Great. A contention win for the Con. -- 3. CON: As a nation that supports and protects our free speech, our right to petition the government, the United States should surely let us exercise our ability to think for ourselves (we don't need to hold the government's hand to make decisions). We should allow our citizens to burn the flag. PRO: Freedom of speech and freedom of petition do not lead to freedom of combustion. Burning the American flag is burning the symbol of America, which is worse than just talking trash about America. * CON: The flag is a symbol of America, not THE symbol of America. Further, not everybody recognizes the flag as such. Similarly, a Christian may not find the Star of David to be a sacred symbol whereas a Jewish person might. Obviously, the Christian would not be expected to revere the symbol in the same way or with the same "respect." Our government was founded on the principle (and has enacted legislation to ensure the protection of) the very right that we, citizens, have to protest, including and some would argue ESPECIALLY our own government. If our demonstration is peaceful and non-threatening, discrediting a certain symbol should not be violating a LAW. Last time I checked, laws were enacted to PROTECT freedoms; not restrict them. Moreover, my opponent has failed to prove any harm that comes from either burning the so-called symbol of America, and/or talking trash about America. This point is a clear win for the Con so far. -- 4. CON: We should be a strong enough country to accept criticism; especially from our own citizens. PRO: I'll attack this point later. * CON: He never does (effectively, anyway). -- 5. CON: What my opponent doesn't realize is that banning the ability of an American citizen to burn a flag openly on US soil is a much greater insult. PRO: Technically, public property is controlled by the government; if the government doesn't want things burned on its property, things don't get burned on its property. * CON: But the government isn't an entity that makes its own decisions. The government is a body of law represented by the ideas of the PEOPLE that the government is supposed to protect. Therefore, ensuring that our rights and freedoms are protected are more important that protecting the possible hurt feelings of some of the population. -- 6. CON: This would be a slap in the face to America's image as a free country that embraces criticism from its citizen with an open mind for change in order to fix the problems such a drastic act as burning a flag might have sparked. This would be a much bigger insult to America's first amendment. PRO: Again, freedom of combustion is not included in the first amendment. *CON: Pro's use of the word "combustion" is not helping his argument. I ask that he either clarify and extend this moot point (which I will have no problem arguing anyway) or ask that the readers simply ignore it. If he's getting at the point that our constitution doesn't grant us the right to explicitly burn things, then (1) I can argue that anyway, but (2) For the sake of clarity, will simply point out that the constitution doesn't explicitly give us the right to chew gum either; however, it doesn't prohibit us from the experience either. -- 7. CON: If such an amendment as making illegal flag burning were to occur, it would be the first time in American history that a citizen could purchase an item he could never legally destroy. PRO: He could still legally destroy it; it would just have to be on his own property, though. * CON: So Pro is admitting that flag burning is acceptable - a huge win for the Con. Now I will simply urge the reader to continue an act such as the Civil Rights Act; easily one of the most influential movements in United States history. What if Martin Luther King and his acts had been limited to his own property? There would be no marches, and hence no (or huge lack of) unity, knowledge, inspiration, etc. There would have been no "I had a dream" speech -- I doubt his property at home would have been big enough to set that grand of a stage. My point is, free speech in public forum is a fundamental right and aspect of expression in this country. Since our inception, citizens have been gathering in public settings to inform their peers regarding a plethora of issues. Even today, most if not all college campuses have some sort of "free speech" area where students and the like can advertise and rally support or awareness for a cause. Like it or not, those who have issues with the government and wish to display their sentiments via flag burning have just as much of a right as other citizens to be heard. Remember that those who don't like it can simply avoid it or ignore it, no? I'm sure this will be addressed further sometime soon... -- 8. CON: Say a citizen has a sun-faded American flag bumper sticker, or a senator gets his American flag cake cut for his guests. What an amendment against desecrating an American flag would bring is legislation against people who desecrate the flag in 'anti-American' fashions. So, the law is punishing thoughts, not acts, and this makes it a much more dreadful piece of legislation. PRO: Eating an American flag cake is not burning an American flag. Furthermore, the act of burning a flag is indeed an act, not just a thought. * CON: So Pro is saying that it's okay to desecrate a flag so long as that does not include burning it? Hmm. I wonder how he'd feel if I shat on the American flag and then raised it high above the crowd in his hometown for everyone to see. Hey, at least its not COMBUSTING! And I'll give him that the idea of flag burning is an action and not just a thought. However, Pro has failed to prove why those (presumably anti-American) thoughts should not be legally within the parameters of that specific act: flag burning. -- 9. CON: The flag stands for the freedom each American has, including the right to burn that very symbol. PRO: However, if they burn the symbol of their freedom, this could be associated with a loss of that freedom. * CON: Uh, no it doesn't. See: Previous arguments. And also, try explaining yours. -- 10. CON: What a law prohibiting its desecration would do is mandate respect for a flag. PRO: It wouldn't mandate respect; it would prohibit combustion. * CON: First, the law may not mandate respect for the flag, but it would mandate respect for tyranny that's usurping the rights of U.S. citizens ( :P ). Second, no law would prohibit anything; since when has the mere act of making something illegal stopped it all-together? Flag burning could be illegal, and it would still be done, i.e. a combustion. -- CON: I await my opponent's defense of his only argument. PRO: I need another argument to add to this debate. * CON: I'm still waiting for a good one... Re: Burning things is dangerous. / Secondhand smoke can be harmful to innocent bystanders. / Sparks flying from a burning flag can seriously injure someone. / The fire started to burn the flag can spread to envelop surrounding areas. * CON: Prove that the burning of a flag would (1) be harmful (2) have spectators (3) that there wouldn't be a "safe" flag burning i.e. in the outdoors where it was minimally harmful and with trained personnel, etc. Further, Pro is advocating for the prohibition of burning things on the basis that it could potentially be dangerous. Readers, consider the logistics of that dumb argument. Should it really be illegal to burn thi