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

"That means nothing. Prove it." Okay, I think it warrants an arrest because a flag is the symbol a country, and to burn the flag is to burn the country. "So you're agreeing with me. Great. A contention win for the Con." Contention win? That was an agreeable fact. "The flag is a symbol of America, not THE symbol of America..." Then what is THE symbol of America? Flags seem to do it for most countries. Also, I have proven that flag burning can be harmful in Contention 2, so your win isn't clear at all. "He never does (effectively, anyway)." Contention 2. "But the government isn't an entity that makes its own decisions. The government is a body of law represented by the ideas of the PEOPLE that the government is supposed to protect. Therefore, ensuring that our rights and freedoms are protected are more important that protecting the possible hurt feelings of some of the population." The government needs to protect the public property. If flag burning poses a threat to public property (which it does), flag burning can be prohibited on public property to preserve the public property. "Pro's use of the word 'combustion' is not helping his argument..." Combustion - an act or instance of burning (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Freedom of combustion sounds cooler than freedom of burning, and sounds more grammatically correct. The point is, the freedom to burn things is NOT protected by the Construction, which was one of your arguments. "So Pro is admitting that flag burning is acceptable - a huge win for the Con..." It is actually an irrelevant agreement for neither side. The debate isn't about burning flags on private property; there was a reason that I specified "public property" for this debate. Also, the Constitution does grant freedom of assembly, but as I already said, it lacks freedom of combustion, which is imperative to your case. "So Pro is saying that it's okay to desecrate a flag so long as that does not include burning it?" Putting the American flag on your birthday cake is not desecrating it. I don't see where you get that notion. "However, Pro has failed to prove why those (presumably anti-American) thoughts should not be legally within the parameters of that specific act: flag burning." Thoughts have never been illegal, so I don't know where thoughts came into this debate. The act is the important part. "Uh, no it doesn't. See: Previous arguments. And also, try explaining yours." You said that the American flag represents a man's freedom. If you burn what represents your freedom, you could be said to have burned your freedom. And when you burn your freedom, you don't have freedom. Capice? "First, the law may not mandate respect for the flag, but it would mandate respect for tyranny that's usurping the rights of U.S. citizens..." It would not mandate respect. It would mandate that the symbol of the country's heritage, history, and everything it stands for not be desecrated in public. "Second, no law would prohibit anything..." Prohibit - to forbid by authority (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) That's what a law does, prohibit. It won't stop the action, but it would forbid it, and punish it if it ever occurred. "I'm still waiting for a good one..." Public safety is of no concern to you? This was actually what I intended to be my first argument, but I decided to use a standard one first. "Prove that the burning of a flag would (1) be harmful (2) have spectators (3) that there wouldn't be a 'safe' flag burning..." (1) Fires are hard to contain. Fires spread. A fire started on a flag could fairly easily spread to the grass below, given a strong enough gust of wind. Fires also give off smoke, which causes air pollution. (2) If people started burning flags in the streets, I know that I would watch. Furthermore, this isn't a key point, as even if there are no spectators, the public property itself is still at risk. (3) Instead of me trying to prove a negative on your statement, you should be proving the affirmative. Furthermore, minimal harm is still potential for harm. If there is a risk of any group starting a massive fire that could be considered arson, the group should be stopped with every attempt, because we should not just wait for them to finally burn the place down, because by then, you've just lost your public property. "Further, Pro is advocating for the prohibition of burning things on the basis that it could potentially be dangerous. Readers, consider the logistics of that dumb argument. Should it really be illegal to burn thi" I don't think my argument is dumb. Should I be allowed to run out into a park with a burning flag, waving it around everywhere in protest, with sparks flying everywhere? Whoops. There goes the playground. Whoops. Sorry about the spark in your eye, sir. I'm just being an inconsiderate little rebel who doesn't care about fire safety. http://en.wikipedia.org... Fire is dangerous. Burning flags is therefore dangerous. Dangerous activities that endanger the public should be prohibited. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. Thank you for reading.