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

1. Re: I think it warrants an arrest because a flag is the symbol a country, and to burn the flag is to burn the country. That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard! Clearly burning a flag does not actually (nor does is it even intended to represent) burning a country. This is a far fetched argument rooted in a blatant lie. 2. My opponent agrees that throwing people in jail for protesting the government is has the resemblance of a Chinese or Afghanistan ideology. In other words, my opponent is agreeing that such a practice would be in direct opposition with American ideals: freedom. 3. There is no specific symbol for America or anywhere else. There are some widely agreed upon symbols, i.e. flags, but symbols are really just means of identification for humans to relate one thing to another. Not everyone views symbols in the same way, and not everyone should have to adhere to the respect of another's symbol (so long as the symbol in question or being destroyed is not someone's property). 4. My opponent says that he's proven that flag burning can be harmful. He has not. He merely listed a set of potential harms that things on fire can do. This is utterly useless to the debate. That's like saying because someone can hit someone over the head with a bat, baseball (Hey! Another symbol of America) should be illegal. FAIL. 5. Re: 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. The flag in question would being to the person burning it. That is THEIR private property, and burning it would cause no physical harm (barring the outlandish and far-fetched scenarios my opponent pitched) to others. The flag is in on way public property. And even if you buy into the fact that something bad could happen as a result of flag burning on public property, consider that car accidents happen on public property all the time (streets). Should this mean that driving automobiles be made illegal? Clearly this is faulty logic. 6. Using the word "combustion" or any variation thereof does not make one's argument more grammatically correct. I'd recommend that Pro focus more on his arguments than trying to use $2 words to try and make it sound better (it's not really helping :/ ). 7. Re: The point is, the freedom to burn things is NOT protected by the Construction, which was one of your arguments. Like I said, the Constitution doesn't exactly give us the right to chew gum either. That doesn't mean we should not be able to. Further, I can argue that the constitution absolutely defends individual LIBERTY. Therefore, one should have the liberty of self-expression (a.k.a. freedom of speech, a.k.a. also directly protected by our Constitution). 8. Re: The Constitution does grant freedom of assembly, but as I already said, it lacks freedom of combustion, which is imperative to your case. And like I've already said, one's right to "combust" things is entirely irrelevant. It is certainly not "imperative" to my case. See the point above. 9. Re: Putting the American flag on your birthday cake is not desecrating it. I don't see where you get that notion. My point is that cutting into the image of the American flag seems like it would be a negative thing by your standards. It has the image of the flag (America's symbol, right?) being cut into or destroyed... so by your logic, that would mean you are destroying AMERICA, right? Psht. 10. Re: Thoughts have never been illegal, so I don't know where thoughts came into this debate. The act is the important part. So... Pro's saying that we shouldn't be able to express our thoughts, even if that form of self expression doesn't directly harm others? Hmm. Well, what about art? Pro consistently neglects these important questions. 11. Re: 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? Capice? Sï¿½, ho capito. Sei colui che non capisce. ... In other words, what you're saying makes no sense. A symbol is just a representation - it doesn't indicate the "real" thing. For instance, at weddings, the bride and groom exchange rings as a symbol of their eternal love. If one of them happens to lose their ring, it doesn't mean that they have lost their love. To suggest such an analogy (that burning "freedom" in the form of a flag actually eliminates your freedom) is ridiculous. Plus, Pro seems to be missing the point that the burning itself is an ACT of freedom. Thus, I can use his logic against him: To inhibit one from burning their "freedom" is actually what's eliminating freedom. 12. Re: (The law) would mandate that the symbol of the country's heritage, history, and everything it stands for not be desecrated in public. At the expense of losing individual liberties? Nay. Not worth it. You haven't proven why it should be, either. And even if you did/will, I'd rip that argument to shreds. Go for it! 13. Re: Public safety argument ... What a joke. Pro ignored all of my questions and skepticism regarding his claims. Until he addresses them, i.e. the likelihood of an actual tragedy, this point is moot. 14. Re: Fires are hard to contain... If people started burning flags in the streets, I know that I would watch... Instead of me trying to prove a negative on your statement, you should be proving the affirmative. 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? Or even just in public? Okay, then campfires (especially those done in parks or other public places) should be outlawed, according to Pro. Further, he ignored every single aspect of my argument regarding other potentially dangerous things being made illegal, i.e. driving and other examples. Moreover, why should I be proving the affirmative? Pro is PRO in this debate, not I. Moreover, he is the instigator. Way to try and shift the burden of proof, Pro. Unfortunately for you, I have not only refuted your weak arguments, but made a strong case of my own (especially regarding liberty, freedoms and rights)... hmm. Nice try. 15. Re: 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. ^ This is a complete exaggeration of what would likely happen at such an "event." Moreover, if someone harmed others during their flag burning session, then that harm caused should be a punishable offense. However, this debate isn't about the HARM that flag burning MIGHT cause; it's about the flag burning itself. - - - - - - - Back to you for now.