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

"That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard..." You say that something is certain, and yet you don't say WHY. I can only argue against something that has a WHY, or else I just end up disagreeing, and neither of us actually have any proof. Clearly, burning a flag is intended to represent the burning of a country. This statement is supported just as much as my opponent's. "2. My opponent agrees that throwing people in jail for protesting the government is has the resemblance of a Chinese or Afghanistan ideology..." In China, they go so far as to restrict freedom of speech. It is much safer and more lenient to restrict freedom of combustion. "3. There is no specific symbol for America or anywhere else..." http://en.wikipedia.org... "One of the most popular uses of a flag is to symbolize a nation or country." "It is most commonly used to symbolize a country." Flags are the symbols of nations. "4. My opponent says that he's proven that flag burning can be harmful..." Fire is dangerous. Simple as that. The difference between fires and baseball bats is that fire can be used for anything and lead to massive fires, but if you use a baseball bat for baseball, you aren't clubbing anyone in the head with it, and there's no risk of everyone suffering baseball bat bruises. Unless, of course, the kids decided to fight with the bats, but that's their own fault. The difference is that it doesn't take a decision to go beyond to trigger a massive fire from a flag burning. "The flag in question would being to the person burning it..." 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. "Using the word 'combustion'..." 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. "Like I said, the Constitution doesn't exactly give us the right to chew gum either..." You weren't arguing a lack of restriction in the Constitution. You were arguing that the Constitution protected freedom of combustion. Big difference. 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. "And like I've already said, one's right to 'combust' things is entirely irrelevant." 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. "My point is that cutting into the image of the American flag seems like it would be a negative thing by your standards..." That's where you actually look into the situation and use human judgment. "This guy's put the flag on his cake, as an act of patriotism. Yay!" "This guy just set the flag on fire... Ah! My eye! A spark flew in my eye! Help me!" Completely different scenarios. "So... Pro's saying that we shouldn't be able to express our thoughts..." If you wish to express your thoughts through highly potentially dangerous means, you should be stopped. If I wanted to express the thought that I think the person beside me is stupid, can I punch him in the face? No. That would interfere with his right to life. "A symbol is just a representation..." Ah, but if one burns the representation of their freedom, it looks as if they don't like their freedom. Well, they can just give it up and do some time in jail, now. "Pro seems to be missing the point that the burning itself is an ACT of freedom..." You have the freedom of combustion, guaranteed by your flag. You decide to burn the flag. You have lost your freedom of combustion. Whoops. "At the expense of losing individual liberties..." Because it is dangerous. And you haven't exactly solidified your point, either. "... What a joke..." I analyzed points 1, 2, and 3. That was all you said. Besides, I can't exactly cite any YouTube videos of a failing flag burn, because when the guy recording realizes that the fire might engulf him, he drops his camcorder and runs. "So you're saying that because fires are hard to contain, and people are tempted to look at things on fire, that lighting things on fire should be prohibited..." http://en.wikipedia.org... "Campfires are prohibited in many public camping areas." They're one step ahead of you on that. Most places already do prohibit campfires. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://edocket.access.gpo.gov... If you read the campfire permit, in which the government allows individuals freedom of combustion, the government is not restricting their freedom of combustion on flags. Thus, the government is already sanctioning any flag burning committed by a person with a campfire permit. Anyone else isn't even allowed to burn wood, and especially not flags, in public property. "Further, he ignored every single aspect of my argument regarding other potentially dangerous things being made illegal, i.e. driving and other examples." Well, excuse me for failing to counter an argument that you just made this round! "Moreover, why should I be proving the affirmative?..." I'm just asking you to affirm ONE statement, a statement that you claimed to be true. You should take the burden of proof for the statements that you make. "I have not only refuted your weak arguments..." Fire is dangerous. Its burning can lead to massive fires, given a good wind. Any fire can lead to an inferno. http://ezinearticles.com... "It is far too easy for a campfire to spread becoming a forest fire." "This is a complete exaggeration of what would likely happen at such an 'event.'" You claim that it is an exaggeration, but you give no reason why. Furthermore, ANY flag burning can lead to massive fires, no matter how safe it may appear. "However, this debate isn't about the HARM that flag burning MIGHT cause; it's about the flag burning itself." However, flag burning directly leads to the potential harms of flag burning, which is a fairly good reason for it to be outlawed. I'm going to anticipate one of your arguments right now. You: "But what it the fire DOESN'T spread? Why still arrest them?" White-collar crimes. When a man borrows money out of his company's safe investment to temporarily receive high returns from a very risky investment, there might be, say, a 10% chance that he doesn't get his money back. He intends to keep all profits made for himself. Should he fail, he should naturally be arrested for losing the company billions unfairly. However, if he succeeds, and it is later discovered what he had done, he should still be arrested and brought to justice, and fined that money. This is because he was risking something that wasn't his, and instead endangered his company's people. If only the people that failed their white-collar crimes were arrested, none of the money lost in such transactions would ever be recovered. Additionally, because the executive risked the workers' money, the benefit should go to the workers, not the executive, because the workers could have lost everything. This is similar to flag burning. When a man burns a flag, there is a chance of success, but every time he does it, he is endangering the public property. He should obviously be stopped before he ends up with a forest fire on his hands. It's also like prohibiting people from driving drunk. You stop them before they actually get into an accident, so as to preserve life. Thank you for this debate. Good day.