The Instigator
denisemarie323
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rob1_Billion
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Flag burning amendment

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,082 times Debate No: 15475
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

denisemarie323

Pro

The flag burning amendment, is a controversial proposed constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to prohibit expression of political views through the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. The concept of flag desecration continues to provoke a heated debate over protecting a national symbol, protecting free speech, and protecting the liberty represented by a national symbol.

The American flag, represents more than 200 years of our history and has come to be the visible symbol which embodies our Nation. It does NOT represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy therefore, Burning the flag is irrelevant and disrespectful to our nation.

Im looking forward to hearing my opponents views on this debate.
Rob1_Billion

Con

"The flag burning amendment, is a controversial proposed constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to prohibit expression of political views through the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Why would anyone want to prohibit expression of political views in a country that prides itself on freedom, particularly the freedom of speech? If political discourse is restricted, and people aren't allowed to express themselves in certain ways, then our process is inherently tainted. If an idea is so perverse then let its perversity be its downfall; the people will decide whether that particular view is in their best interests or not.

The first amendment protects our rights to speech and expression. Speech is sometimes restricted because words can be used to slander, mislead, etc. Expression, however, is different than speech. It is much more basic; much harder to justify prohibiting. Expression is not a human right, like speech; it is a natural right that all organisms possess to some degree. A cat can express itself by fluffing its tail or meowing loudly for attention, for example. Expression, therefore, demands (and indeed receives) more protection of its sanctity than that of speech.

"The American flag, represents more than 200 years of our history and has come to be the visible symbol which embodies our Nation. It does NOT represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy therefore, Burning the flag is irrelevant and disrespectful to our nation."

I challenge that burning the flag is disrespectful to our nation. If our nation is truly as free and open as we proclaim, then the burning of its flag represents the very freedoms that we seek to protect. Other countries are more authoritarian about these matters, and that very distinction is at the heart of why we are different and why we are 'free' while they are not. If we start arresting people for expressing themselves with a piece of cloth then we are on our way to big-state authoritarianism of the likes of Red China or N Korea.

Our country was founded on revolution. Does it make any sense that a country, founded on revolution, would turn around and prevent criticism of itself and its symbology? We created this country to free ourselves from oppressive ideas like this and if the path of freedom leads us to another revolution than we should let that path be cleared, not obscured by rhetoric, authoritarianism, and closed-mindedness.
Debate Round No. 1
denisemarie323

Pro

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
denisemarie323

Pro

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
Rob1_Billion

Con

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I know what you're thinking... "that's one good-looking goat..."
Debate Round No. 3
denisemarie323

Pro

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
denisemarie323

Pro

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
Rob1_Billion

Con

Rob1_Billion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rob1_Billion 5 years ago
Rob1_Billion
Why thank you for the debate invitation. Before I accept, I would like you to understand that my credentials are misleading... I've been a member since 2007 (through different accounts) so I'm not a new debater. I will be attacking your resolution from many angles you may not have anticipated and, being 'Pro,' you will have a substantially higher burden of proof than will I to make your case. Are you sure you want to continue?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lovelife 5 years ago
lovelife
denisemarie323Rob1_BillionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited all but the first round, while con forfeited none but the last. (conduct con) Con provided arguments while all pro did was assert her opinion. Con provided the US constitution and the amendments it hosts as his source, while pro offered nothing.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
denisemarie323Rob1_BillionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to provide an argument and pro did not refute them. They both lose conduct for the forfeits.