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

Re: Clearly, burning a flag is intended to represent the burning of a country. This statement is supported just as much as my opponent's. I highly disagree with you, Pro. Flag burning isn't intended to represent the burning of a country; it's supposed to symbolize a form of protest - that's it - usually against the government. Some of the many connotation's of a flag's symbolism is freedom and liberty, for example. If people feel that the U.S. is prohibiting either of these things, say if Congress enacted anti-abortion laws, people may burn the flag to represent the idea that the U.S. is desecrating American freedom. Thus, it's not the country itself that people intend to protest, but rather the values being represented by government actions. -- Re: In China, they go so far as to restrict freedom of speech. It is much safer and more lenient to restrict freedom of combustion. I could argue that prohibiting flag burning IS violating free speech. It violates a freedom of expression which does not cause explicit physical harm to anyone. What my opponent is calling for is censorship, much like the censorship imposed upon more oppressed nations. -- Re: Flags are the symbols of nations. I've already addressed this. -- Re: Fire is dangerous. Simple as that. Again, then my opponent is offering the contention that fire should almost never be used. I've already explained how this is impractical and ridiculous. Moreover, he ignores my points noting that flag burning in almost every situation would be completely harmless. He failed to argue otherwise. Re (later on): Fire is dangerous. Its burning can lead to massive fires, given a good wind. Any fire can lead to an inferno. Uh... so my opponent opposes fire of all kind? Again, he hasn't defended this. -- Re: Then he can burn it on his own property. Burning anything releases smoke, which is bad, and if he should drop the flag on the ground, it can spark a park-fire. Car accidents are different in the fact that driving cars around provide the huge benefit of transportation, a necessity to society, while flag burning really only causes fire. The flag IS the person's own property. Additionally, if you want to eliminate anything that releases smoke, well... you've got a problem. Cars are beneficial, sure, but they're also harmful (and release smoke!). Additionally, you don't NEED cars so really they're just a luxury, and not a necessity. Additionally, flag burning is about more than causing fire. If it weren't, my opponent wouldn't be so adamantly against it. Flag burning is a symbol in and of itself; it represents various American ideals and is not simply meant to cause fire. To argue this is hypocritical against my opponent's very own argument (that flag burning is meaningful and a representation of the U.S.) -- This point is negated. -- Re: Combustion is just as complicated as petition. Thus, freedom of combustion mirrors freedom of petition. Combustion is the best noun I can think of to represent the act of burning anything. "Freedom of burning" would not properly mirror freedom of petition because it would compare a verb and a noun. Uh, mayhaps you could have worded things differently? I don't know. I'm not an English teacher. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. -- Re: When the self-expression requires chemical processes that pose the risk of causing everyone to die in a blazing inferno, I'd like to cite my freedom to life. This is the most ignorant argument ever. Again, my opponent is suggesting that anything that could pose a type of risk upon society should be outlawed. In that case, almost EVERYTHING should be illegal. Candles are known to cause fires. Electrical wires are known to cause fires. Etc. In order for this point to be valid, my opponent would have had to argue that eliminating everything potentially (and not probably) dangerous to society would be beneficial. Citing his "freedom to life" is both dramatic and irrelevant. -- Re: It is entirely relevant, because if one is not allowed to burn things in general on public property, there is no reason why flags should get special treatment. Never did my opponent suggest nor prove that burning anything on public property was illegal. Therefore, it can not be taken into account now. Plus, there are exceptions to everything. An example is that fireworks are illegal in the state of NY, but on the 4th of July, there is a special fireworks display (and fireworks can be dangerous... and yes, they do this on public property) completely within legal parameters. So. -- Re: However, flag burning directly leads to the potential harms of flag burning, which is a fairly good reason for it to be outlawed. I noticed that my opponent is against Gun Control. So am I. He probably realizes that similarly, just because some people MIGHT be harmed as a result of legal firearms, that is no reason to assume that they would be and thus infringe upon everyone's rights "just in case." Rather, we should take steps to ensure and exhibit safety. The same logic applies to flag burning. Although a fire MIGHT (but probably wouldn't) lead to a so-called blazing inferno, that doesn't mean that freedom of expression should be limited, affecting everyone individually and representing America (as tyrannical) as a whole. -- Re: Fire as a white collar crime. Come on now. What my opponent SHOULD have argued (maybe) was the possibility of flag burning as a victimless crime, buuut he didn't, so. Plus, I would have negated that anyway. -- CONCLUSION: There is currently nothing in the Constitution's definition of freedom of expression that declares or indicates that flag-burning should be illegal. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court upheld the decision that burning the flag was a form of free speech. Bans on flag-burning are clear violations of the free exercise of speech, a fundamental right in our democracy. Using the Constitution to promote patriotic sentiments would be a cynical abuse of legislative power. Those who support amending the Constitution to protect flags would establish a dangerous precedent that would erode our liberties [1]. Thus, banning flag burning would actually do more harm than good. The outlandish claims about safety and "combustion" made by my opponent are mere distractions of the true issue: a violation of the first amendment, and America's right to both protest and exercise the liberties that we are supposed to protect. Source: [1] http://www.speakout.com...)