Flag Desecration is exercising one's freedom of speech

I would like to ask the right honourable gentleman if we could use the Cambridge style debating system. As I am from the UK that is what I have been brought up with that system. I would also like to say that I am only in secondary school, or in America you call it middle/high school, so if my use of prose, grammar, punctuation, spelling and the like are wrong to you, please accept my pre-empted apology. If the right honourable gentleman does not understand, in one way or the other, what I am am saying (or trying to say) please do not hesitate to ask. First I would like to open the debate by defining the motion; " Flag Desecration is exercising one's freedom of speech". The Oxford English dictionary states that the word flag is: "A piece of cloth or similar material, typically oblong or square, attachable by one edge to a pole or rope and used as the symbol or emblem of a country or institution or as a decoration during public festivities. " as well as it being: "Used in reference to one's home country or its system of beliefs and values. " . The word Desecration is: "The action of desecrating something. " which is completely unhelpful, so I took the liberty of using a sight called dictionary. com, and one of their definitions states: "to treat with sacrilege; profane. " . The word exercising is (Oxford online dictionary): "An activity carried out for a specific purpose. " . The phrase, from the Oxford online dictionary, states that freedom of speech is: "The power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. " . With that over and done with we can say that the motion means: "A piece of cloth or similar material, typically oblong or square, attachable by one edge to a pole or rope and used as the symbol or emblem of a country or institution or as a decoration during public festivities used in reference to one's home country or its system of beliefs and values to treat with sacrilege; profane, is an activity carried out for a specific purpose (with) one's power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty. " . I hope that does not confuse the right honourable gentleman (apologies in advance if it does). Now, first of all I would like to point out some things in your argument, you say: "Flag desecration, despite being an act of hate towards one's country, should be allowed. It is an infringement on one's freedom of speech to make flag desecration illegal. Why should the government be allowed to decide what we should not say? You cannot give the government power over you, for they will abuse that power eventually. All governments become corrupt. It is only a matter of time. (I do not condone flag desecration)" I would like to point out that the US government (and all fairly elected governments) do have the power over American citizens, governments have every right to exercise their powers over their citizens, in America the National constitution is held by all states and single states have their own smaller scale powers. So the government does have power "over you" as long as you are a citizen of that country of course. I would also like to point out that you do say that "all governments become corrupt" and I hate to be rude but that is just not true. You need to understand that the idea of a 'government' ( i. e. . "The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office. "- courtesy of Oxford online dictionaries. ) The first parliamentary government (which is what I gather is what you mean, otherwise you would be talking about a dictatorship) was formed in the UK (yay) "with the Magna Carta in 1215. "- Wikipedia ( search British Government in Google and read Section one, paragraph two line three) and since then it has withheld/ brought forward rights of the people, so I cant really allow that point to be carried across, this is also a rebuttal of what you said being " for they will abuse that power eventually", the British government has acted in the bests interests of the times, so that too is not true. My argument against this motion as the opposition will start very simply with a statement, people should not be able to treat a countries values and beliefs with sacrilege without restraint. We know that a countries flag is a symbol of its values and beliefs from flags such as the French flag with the red,white and blue meaning liberty, equality and fraternity. As a flag is a symbol of the countries values burning it is rejecting the countries values. I believe that although freedom of speech is a good thing and has proved itself to be so, the lack of restraint can only go so far. We don't allow people to preach and convert people about anti gay subjects and it is not allowed to preach on religious matters as it would be a breach of peace as shown in the Christian institute, I have taken the liberty of adding the link here: . https://www.christian.org.uk.... Also it is an insult to the entire nation of the flag you are desecrating and all those who believe in its values. It is unacceptable and morally incorrect to fly opinions you may think on others who may not think the same way and frankly insulting those who believe in those values, you have no moral correctness to desecrate the values and freedom of speech does not go as far as protecting those blatantly insulting others, take for example the Iranian lawmakers who burned the American flag, the media (the very thing holding closest freedom of speech) was in shock and horror at what they did and acted accordingly. In conclusion (for round one) I would say that desecrating a flag is desecrating the values of the country, insulting the citizens of the country and insulting those who believe in the values, a prime example of this is the Iranian law makers desecrating the American flag, freedom of speech is good but it only goes so far to protect those speaking, and insulting a countries flag and by extension its values is to far to be tolerated. Thank you for reading round one.