The Instigator
joshpleco23
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Cherymenthol
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Flag Burning Should be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,069 times Debate No: 11504
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

joshpleco23

Pro

Hello, I am Pleco!
And I shall accept the burden of proof that flag burning is constitutional for your country, and even justifiable.

In the first round, we shall introduce each other and explain what our position is briefly, like I have done above. Then, we shall use the three rounds we have left to discuss the topic. That gives us three rounds to debate, and one round to say hello.

Thank you, and please vote for Pleco.
Cherymenthol

Con

Pleco, my title is Cherymenthol the Omnipotent.

I am taking this debate on the grounds that you swear you will not alter the words of the resolution, which is, "Flag burning in your [meaning my] country, and even justifiable."

My thesis is simple and sweet.

1) Flag Burning is unconstitutional in my country, Iran, as well as numerous other countries.

2) Flag burning can be legal, but under certain circumstances it is entirely illegal.

3) Then I will argue Free Speech is bad.

4) Then I will argue It is never justified to speak freely against one's country.

Thank you and please vote Cherymenthol
Debate Round No. 1
joshpleco23

Pro

Well, I will be honest with you, I was expecting someone living in the United States, but I shall put up with your conditions because I like you. Please understand that if you live in the United States, and not Iran (currently) I shall not consider Iran your country, only your country of origin.

First off, you state that flag burning is unconstitutional in Iran, however, flags have been burned in Iran. A good example is an American flag that was burned in Tehran, Iran back in 2009. No legal action or attempts to stop the burning were made. Furthermore, Iran does promise a freedom of assembly, which gives people the right to gather so long as they have no firearms, I am going to assume that also counts for protests.

Flag burning certainly can be legal, and I will be interested in you explaining the circumstances where it is illegal. I fully understand the safety concerns (fire hazards and smoke), however, I am willing to argue that if done safely, you have a right to be heard.

You say that freedom of speech is bad, well, your talking to a guy who believes that there should only be one country ran under military dictatorship... So in most cases I would have to agree with you, unless it conflicted with that political viewpoint.

And, it is justifiable to speak out against your own country, especially if you disagree with a law, action, or political philosophy taken by the country which you disagree with.

Sources:
http://www2.macleans.ca...
http://www.servat.unibe.ch...
Cherymenthol

Con

First and foremost I look forward to this round, now onto the refutations.

"Well, I will be honest with you, I was expecting someone living in the United States, but I shall put up with your conditions because I like you. Please understand that if you live in the United States, and not Iran (currently) I shall not consider Iran your country, only your country of origin."

Thank you for understanding and debating Flag Burning in Iran.

"First off, you state that flag burning is unconstitutional in Iran, however, flags have been burned in Iran. A good example is an American flag that was burned in Tehran, Iran back in 2009. No legal action or attempts to stop the burning were made. Furthermore, Iran does promise a freedom of assembly, which gives people the right to gather so long as they have no firearms, I am going to assume that also counts for protests."

This could have been a clever tactic in order to attack the constitutionality of flag burning in Iran, but you don't actually attack the constitutionality of the action. But when we look at this statement what we can see is that Flags have been burned and that people did not stop the flag burning. However neither of these two things necessarily mean it is constitutional to do this. Breaking down the two claims we can see why.

A) No legal action was taken or attempts to stop the burning were taken. This first off all is unverifiable, we are not sure if actions were taken either way, and judging by the illegality of the act we can assume their were. Secondly we must keep in mind that just because no one was persecuted doesn't mean it is legal. For instance if I shoot Chuck Norris and kill him, and no one finds out that doesn't mean killing or shooting Chuck Norris is legal.

B) Freedom of Assembly, and Protests. Pleco assumes that because their is the right to assemble than their is the right to protest, but that is a fallacy. This image http://amautadiaries.files.wordpress.com... shows police breaking up a protest, which is illegal. Further more the U.S. separates the rights to protest and gathering, meaning they are two different entities and thus not protected by the same thing. Ergo the same logic can once again be applied to the already stated gathering of people

"Flag burning certainly can be legal, and I will be interested in you explaining the circumstances where it is illegal. I fully understand the safety concerns (fire hazards and smoke), however, I am willing to argue that if done safely, you have a right to be heard."

I will gladly post how it is illegal, burning the current Iranian national flag, even by political opponents, violates the spirit of the words Allahu Akbar and so that would be seen as a religious insult, and thus unconstitutional. However it is the affirmative job to show how it is illegal. So I will gladly refute those claims once presented.

"You say that freedom of speech is bad, well, your talking to a guy who believes that there should only be one country ran under military dictatorship... So in most cases I would have to agree with you, unless it conflicted with that political viewpoint."

I will interpret this remark as meaning free speech is bad. My opponent states that flag burning is a way to voice opinions, and because free speech is bad flag burning is bad. And because bad legislation is a no-no it need be made illegal in places where it is not. This does two things it shows how my opponent concedes, and fills the other half the resolution (determining whether or not it should be banned).

"And, it is justifiable to speak out against your own country, especially if you disagree with a law, action, or political philosophy taken by the country which you disagree with."

This is conflicting with your personal views and expressed view. Furthermore this is untrue, speaking out against your country breed anti-government fervor and ultimately terrorism.

So we ought to negate.
Debate Round No. 2
joshpleco23

Pro

This could have been a clever tactic in order to attack the constitutionality of flag burning in Iran, but you don't actually attack the constitutionality of the action. But when we look at this statement what we can see is that Flags have been burned and that people did not stop the flag burning. However neither of these two things necessarily mean it is constitutional to do this. Breaking down the two claims we can see why.
"A) No legal action was taken or attempts to stop the burning were taken. This first off all is unverifiable, we are not sure if actions were taken either way, and judging by the illegality of the act we can assume their were. Secondly we must keep in mind that just because no one was persecuted doesn't mean it is legal. For instance if I shoot Chuck Norris and kill him, and no one finds out that doesn't mean killing or shooting Chuck Norris is legal.
"B) Freedom of Assembly, and Protests. Pleco assumes that because their is the right to assemble than their is the right to protest, but that is a fallacy. This image http://amautadiaries.files.wordpress.com...... shows police breaking up a protest, which is illegal. Further more the U.S. separates the rights to protest and gathering, meaning they are two different entities and thus not protected by the same thing. Ergo the same logic can once again be applied to the already stated gathering of people"

Honestly, after looking at copies of the constitution translated into English, I couldn't find one thing that mentioned flag burning or protesting... So I automatically make the assumption based on that article, considering there is no other article that I know of covering protests or flag burning. Since the constitution does infact give people the right to gather, however, it doesn't specify what they should gather for.

Cherymenthol the Omnipotent uses an image in order to prove a point, however the image in unreliable, due to the fact there is no information that goes along with it. Without understanding the circumstances of the event, it is fair to say it is an unreliable source, and could even be irrelevant. I would also like to point out that the US and Iran are not the same country, what might be different to the US might not be different to Iran.

"I will gladly post how it is illegal, burning the current Iranian national flag, even by political opponents, violates the spirit of the words Allahu Akbar and so that would be seen as a religious insult, and thus unconstitutional. However it is the affirmative job to show how it is illegal. So I will gladly refute those claims once presented."

The Iranian flag isn't the only kind of peanut butter on the fluffernutter my friend. The Iranian national flag would certainly be considered an insult to the Iranian people, however burning an American flag or a Israeli flag might be more acceptable.

"I will interpret this remark as meaning free speech is bad. My opponent states that flag burning is a way to voice opinions, and because free speech is bad flag burning is bad. And because bad legislation is a no-no it need be made illegal in places where it is not. This does two things it shows how my opponent concedes, and fills the other half the resolution (determining whether or not it should be banned)."

I stated what flag burning is, it is a way to express someone's political views... However, I never said that free speech is good. The only reason I support flag burning is to get political views which I support noticed, kind of like advertisement... I honestly couldn't care less about whatever other reason someone has for burning a flag. However, it is essential that other groups be allowed to burn flags, because that would effect our right.

I would like to point out that my nemesis here does not reside in Iran... Due to the fact his account says he lives in West Palm Beach Florida in the United States... I shall quote myself:
"Well, I will be honest with you, I was expecting someone living in the United States, but I shall put up with your conditions because I like you. Please understand that if you live in the United States, and not Iran (currently) I shall not consider Iran your country, only your country of origin." I started this debate on my terms, only accepting your terms to be fair due to the fact I said "I shall accept the burden of proof that flag burning is constitutional for your country", your country being the two key words.
Cherymenthol

Con

Cherymenthol forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
joshpleco23

Pro

My opponent has not responded, I shall withhold further arguments until answered.
Cherymenthol

Con

Cherymenthol forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Republican95 6 years ago
Republican95
Would you require the opponent is argue that to ban flag burning is not unconstitutional or that it SHOULD be illegalized?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
joshpleco23CherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40