Flag Desecration should always be legal

I shall negate my opponent by corresponding with the numerical ordering he provided earlier in the round: 1) Burden of Proof: My opponent accepts the Burden of Proof. Yes, I do have to negate the resolution. 2) Definitions: My opponent agrees with all of my definitions. 3) Notes: My opponent once again agrees with my notes. 4) Quote: My opponent does not bring up an argument with this, so there is nothing more to discuss. However, my opponent should have also stayed on topic by not posting an unnecessary section in regards to the debate. 5) First Amendment: My opponent quoted: "What this section is essentially debating is whether it is permissible by the first amendment to desecrate a flag, and I attest that it is not. " My opponent has stated that it is NOT permissible to desecrate a flag by the first amendment. He has just supported my argument and has conceded that it is not permissible by the first amendment to desecrate a flag. Hence, flag desecration should not always be legal if it violates the first amendment, which my opponent clearly stated with his quote. Therefore, the resolution is negated. I urge a Con vote. 6) Morals: I was not directly arguing about morals. However, my opponent has agreed to all of my definitions. My definition of "should" that I provided in Round I was "implying a morally binding duty or obligation. " Therefore, it is essential that my opponent provides evidence as to why there is a morally binding duty/obligation to keep flag desecration always legal, which he has not. Thus, he has not reached his Burden of Proof, and I heavily urge a Con vote. 7) Instances: The burning of the flag would have been considered illegal because it caused the burning of the White House. The people in front of the White House were logically burning the flags in front of the White House to make a stand. They would not have gathered in front of the White House simply to burn wood; they wanted to make a protest, so they burned the flags. This scenario is different from burning wood, simply because it is obvious that protesters would burn the flag, not wood, to make a statement in front of the White House. The sparks from a flag could be that hot, for you must defend every scenario that I create. The point is, the cause of the death was the burning of the flag, which would make it illegal. My opponent quoted: "Once you find one legitimate instance where it would be legal, you win. " My opponent has just stated that if I find one legitimate instance where flag desecration would be legal, then I win. However, my opponent has completely contradicted himself. I am supposed to make an instance where flag desecration would be illegal. However, my opponent's statement concedes that my two instances gave reasons as to why flag desecration would be illegal in those cases. Him wanting me to come up with one scenario to make flag desecration seem legal implies that my two instances proved my side, so I heavily urge a Con vote. 8) My opponent's argument: Once again, my opponent must prove that there is a morally binding duty/obligation to make flag desecration always legal, and he still has failed to do so. Flag burning may not physically hurt someone (although it did in my provided instances), but it hits people emotionally and mentally. Millions of Americans have fought through the worst of times to make America a nation that symbolizes patriotism and freedom. The flag is a symbol of what America stands for. Burning the flag tears away the meaning of the progress Americans have made. My opponent's domino effect does not make sense, because he has already stated that flag desecration is not permissible by the first amendment. (Look at point number 5) My opponent's proposed domino effect is irrelevant, for he has no evidence that it will happen. I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for the opportunity. I heavily urge a Con vote, for I have rebutted my opponent and negated the resolution. Thank you.