Flag burning

Lets go to his argument about how everything can be dangerous, such as driving a car. First, acts like driving a car are daily activities that are almost a total necessity in modern day life. You won't die from not being able to burn a flag.His examples of a parachute and driving are all acts that do not affect others. So lets go to his argument about how leaving a curling iron on can harm others but thats not illegal. First, eld i'd say if someone were to do that they should be held accountable if the curling iron causes a fire and kills someone or destroys property, just because it's not illegal right now doesn;t man its the right way to go about. And furthermore, he tries to ridicule the notion of people being sent to jails for leaving ironers on, but i would say it is negligence and ought to be punished. But even if you don't buy that, I would say leaving a curling iron on could just be an accident that can happend in your daily lives, whereas you actively choose to burn a flag. On his lightning example, this completely is irrelevant to flag burning because flag burning is a man made cause, not a natural cause. He also says people are "sent to jail" for burning flags, making it seem unjust, however it doesnt necessarily have to be incarceration, it could range from a warning to a small fine. "There are other ways to make macaroni other than boiling water. Flag burning is used when motions run high. When the government does something atrocious like commit a genocide, burning a flag hardly seems too radical." First, if it really was as bad as genocide i would definetly NOT want people to be burning flags instead of actually doing something. If something such as a holocaust happened and all the people did was burn flags, i'd say they are morally incorrect because they should be overthrowing such tyrannous government, not PROTESTING, which is what burning a flag is.Furthermore, he ASSUMES flag burning is only used when motions rn high, but if there are no limits, one could "burn a flag" to protest a speediing ticket. "Lighting any fire can be harmful to the environment. Should we outlaw camp fires now? No. You are trying to control every aspect of everyone's lives." This is a great arguemtn by my opponent. However, I say events such as campifires are done far away from the public and away from the majority of children, so it doesn't show a serious threat.Furthermore, camp fires are reserved for camping and so are perhaps burning a funeral pyre. Burning a flag could become a way to protest every minor decision and protests are much more frequent, thus the chances of starting fires increases dramatically. "So people should not be able to harm themselves by smoking or consuming large amounts of alcohol? Every individual has the right to autonomy. They have the right to ingest or do anything to themselves so long as they do not harm anyone else. What right does the government have to take away my right to smoke?" OK, this is where are political views differ. He ridicules the notion of banning the right to smoke or drink alchohol. I'd say the government has an obligation to protect someone not only to protect others around him or protect that individual,m but the government also has to protect themselves. Imagine if everyone was a crackhead and had lung cancer, deaths would skyrocket and the government would face serious problems. I'd say acts such as drinking and smoking are INFAMOUS for harming others through either drunkedness or second hand smoking, so they really should be outlawed, in fact it was outlawed once,however it was not a success, but i would say we should at least put some contraints to drinking and smoking.The government has every right to take away the right to smoke because the right to smoke isn't a fundamental right, it's a selfish right the only person who benefits is you... scratch that, even YOU don't benefit because it harms the body, as well as others, so I'd say getting rid of smoking would get rid of alot of families and governments daily problems. And my opponent is probably gonna say something like "Well guns can harm others too but we don't ban guns, i'd say guns are a check against the government, you can;'t defeat a government with second hand smoke but you can try to defeat them with guns if they become too tyrannous, so possessing guns is much more necessary then smoking or burning a flag. "Just because one protests the governments actions does not mean that they dislike america. It just means that they care enough about their country to detest harmful actions. Just because a parent detests an action by their child or punishes them does not mean that they dislike the child. It just means that they care enough to not let harmful actions go by." OK, that might be their view, but what's it going to look like to a patriot or the public? They won't question "excuse me, why are you burning a flag" they will automatically judge the person and perceive him to be "un-patriotic", thus this means they are still going to be stigmatized because of people's perceptions, although that might not be their intent. And i honestly cant see a flag burner burning a flag and holding a "I love America" sign at the same time. Just because something makes someone mad does not mean that that action should be criminalized. Most forms of protest will makes some people mad. Do you have a problem with all religions as religion certainly stirs up strong emotions in people and has in many cases led to extreme violence. And you identified yourself as a patriot. Nationalism has certainly led to many wars. People want to defend their country. I don't necessarily have a problem with that I am just showing that most things will make some people mad and things most precious to most people like religion or patriotism definitely can lead to violence. This was funny not because it was a bad argument but because you said i identified myself as a patriot, whereas i meant to say "US patriots, not us patriots, although i do love america and am what you'd call a patriot. He says religions make people angry too. But i would say religions differ everywhere, and whereas people disagree on religion in perhaps America i'd say most US citizens love america. So even if a buddhist and christian may not get on religiously, they will still agree most likely that a flag burner is bad. Plus, a flag burner is without many allies, unlike huge religious groupes who have peopl backing them up. The only time social stigmatization happens is when a few people are shunned or looked down upon, so religions are usually big and would not be the subject of "stigma." Finally, he says im limiting people's rights, but most of these examples he gives, although he thinks they are ridiciulpous and never ought to be illegal, I'd say these examples can harm someone through negligence or just lack of concern for society, and thus needs to be restrained, even if theyre not right now.