Flag desecration should be legal

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful response! "What gives it precedence over the Flag code?" The first amendment is in the constitution, and the flag code is not. "Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" Here's a tip for debating. When someone provides a definition which may not entirely be to your favor, always check the dictionary. Did you look at 1B? "Something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power." I feel like it is excessively using power. I also feel like it is unjust and cruel, but the "excessive" really stands out. "the reason we want it was because the King could make as many laws, rules, and tax us to no end and we would not be able to stop him." Which is quite a good argument for the first amendment, which you earlier said was not good. He wanted to take away our freedom of religion, as well as other reasons. I might also want to point out that, while there isn't any documented evidence of a british flag burn, there was the Boston Tea party. So we say that that is justified? It only made the British government more mad at us. "now this would be nice but because there is no Law and order people felt that they can get away with anything because the have no fear of being caught doing something they know is wrong." Quite true. They were robbing people...killing people...burning flags... I think that you made an argument against anarchy, but it doesn't hold much water in the realm of flag desecration. "The American government most of the time hasn't done anything that is considered oppression, they have a balance between Law and order and Freedom with just enough of each." I think a good example of when they went overboard is abolition. They made a law which they realized was unfair and oppressive, so they fixed it. "It's for example a dog with a two feet leash they have lots of freedom but they still need to be watched and make sure the dog behaviors [sic]." You are still missing the point. I am not against laws, I am only against the unfair sort. "think about a parent making sure their child is within arms reach, they give them freedom to move around but they want to make sure they are safe." Would it realistically endanger anyone to burn a flag? "the government still has to make sure people don't abusive [sic] their rights" But is it abusing any rights to exercise your right of peaceful protest? "If they don't put this law is effort then people could just burn down the Statue of Liberty because they are expressing themselves or because that is how they feel about America, or if that's their way." You make a very valid point, but there are definitely flaws. The first of which is that you don't own the statue of liberty, so it's arson. Also, there is only one statue of liberty, and there are probably people in it, so it would also be murder or at least attempted murder. Also, honestly, Lady Liberty is a huge landmark, and there are millions of flags, and they're usually died pieces of either cloth of vinyl. Yes, it does have a wonderful image on it, but it shouldn't be sacred. "maybe, we may never now, but we know that limited government isn't a good idea." So you are arguing for a totalitarian regime? We have to limit our government. Have you ever looked at what happened in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China? They didn't limit their government, and the results were awful. In each, many, many people died. The results of every single totalitarian regime have been absolutely devastating. I would like to thank my opponent for 2 most excellent arguments and one more to come. Even though your arguments were so good, though, you have not quite negated the resolution completely, and therefore I urge a pro vote. Even so, my opponent did a commendable job, and I would like to thank him for that. I am looking forward to your final argument!