The Instigator
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
dogparktom
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
dogparktom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,200 times Debate No: 10212
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

Marauder

Pro

I've been informed that I must be very specific about what I am debating or my opponent can decide to debate something else. So here are the definitions

flag burning: letting it catch on fire. doesn't matter how. you could use kerosene, a campfire, a forest fire, a volcano, stuff it in the grill, ect...

patriotism: for this debate this only refers to America. love or devotion to ones country; http://www.merriam-webster.com...

hurt: detrimental, abrasive to accumulation or fulfilment of, the opposite of aiding

Outlawing: to make illegal. the ultimate act of our government declaring something as wrong.

Americas flag: this thing http://hastings.house.gov...
or copies of it.

taking the Con position means you are against flag burning. you have to show that its practice ceasing to continue is not harmful to patriotism as would be legally defined the way it is above. as icing on the cake it would likely help your position to show how doing such would even be helpful to the public' s patriotism, but this debate does not hinge on that.

for the audience who intends to vote, you should not vote for con if he or she should attempt to argue the effects of burning Americas flag has for other countries patriotism, nor should you vote for them if they argue what burning other countries flag has for Americas patriotism. you should also not give them your vote if they argue against only one kind of method of burning the flag, such as the effects of burning the flag with a normal lighter after soaking it in kerosene, or in a specific location, like in front of the white house or the local court house. because for this debates sake it does not matter where, on a boat, my backyard, at Disney land's parking lot, it is not relevant. for this debates sake it does not matter how, your stove, the grill, the furnace on a train, in a forest fire, all methods shall be covered by the imaginary law that outlaws burning of the flag.

With these terms in place I have secured all the room for the arguments I plan to use; but right now I am more interested in what my opponent will have to say.

Good luck!
dogparktom

Con

Thanks, Pro, for posting this interesting debate topic.

I'll start by stating my understanding of the BURDEN OF PROOF regarding the stated proposition:

Outlawing the burning of Americas flag will hurt patriotism.

I contend that:

PRO:
Pro has the burden of proof. Pro must prove that outlawing the burning of the American flag WILL HURT patriotism.

Pro's burden of proof is a POSITIVE burden:

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof..." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro must initially present evidence. Pro should present empirical evidence (scholarly studies) in support of his burden of proof on the proposition.

Con respectfully challenges Pro to submit such evidence.

CON:
PRO CONTENDS that Con must prove that outlawing the burning of the American flag WILL NOT HURT patriotism. PRO STATED:

"...taking the Con position means you are against flag burning. you have to show that its practice ceasing to continue is not harmful to patriotism... supra

Thus, Con's burden of proof is a NEGATIVE burden. Con must prove a negative, that something is not the case. But Pro's contention is fallacious:

"Burden of proof in epistemology and scientific methodology

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance)."
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

I look forward to Pro's presentation of empirical evidence in the next round.

Tom
Debate Round No. 1
Marauder

Pro

Thank you Tom for taking this debate.
I would first like to say, I did not mean to be fallacious, only enticing. For if I were to start out with my proof you might have never decided to take up this debate when you can see my argument falls clear within the limits I placed in round one.

As for supplying that proof you are completely right, I do have provide my claim with support first for you to have something to knock down. And now that you have accepted this debate I can not hold it back.

I have been a member of a boy scout troop for several years now and there is something we practice in patriotism to our country.
http://www.scoutingbear.com...
http://www.usscouts.org...
http://www.kiwanisyouthpark.org...

these flag retirement ceremonies clearly falls in the definition I gave for this debate of burning a flag. How on earth can anyone accuse us boy scouts of being anything less than exemplary patriotism? Part of the scout oath is duty to our country. http://www.scouting.org...
outlawing burning flags keeps us from venerating our nations flag properly in there disposal. The first time I participated in a flag retirement ceremony I was told one of the reasons we do this is so that none may ever see our flag in a garbage dump. If we are not allowed to burn them this outcome will occur.
As an Assistant Scoutmaster in my troop, I have observed new scouts half-hearted raise the flag in the opening ceremony. But after flag day when we had a flag retirement ceremony scheduled led by a navy veteran, they show much better patriotism now. Its almost as if they understand now the solemn way of saying the pledge of allegiance now.
One of our past presidents said "boy do we need scouts"; if you make illegal these retirement ceremonies this will only hurt the patriotism of our scouts. The pledge of allegiance remains for them just something they have to do. With more parents coming along who try treating scouts like a baby sitting service and do not participate in it themselves this new generation is certainly not going to grow real patriotism at home. And when scouts is something this nation needs, it cannot be good when those scouts do not grow in patriotism at all. there are more scouts in my troop that show pride for the Dixie flag then there is for the American flag.

To often is flag burning debated about in ignorance of these retirement ceremonies. this method of burning a flag is a show of patriotism for our country. Where you to start messing with this form of freedom speech it will no doubt make it very easy for one loon to convince the people waving "don't tread on me" flags at all the fox news tea parties that it is time for the south to rise again.
redirecting our patriotism away from our country to a non-existent country is most certainly going to be harmful to our patriotism for the country that is real, America.

So there you go Tom; you now have something to prove is not the case. outlawing flag retirement ceremonies would in fact not be harmful to patriotism would count as your negative burden. Or proving that the retirement ceremonies in fact does not qualify under my definitions of burning a flag, although I believe I was careful enough to make sure that it does count as flag burning in my definition.

So have at it!
dogparktom

Con

Hi Pro. I admire the Boy Scouts and since you are an adult Scout leader, I admire you. I agreed with the decision in Boy Scouts v. Dale, http://en.wikipedia.org... , and I have been outraged at the retaliatory actions taken thereafter against the Scouts by those who disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision.

That said, I'll now return to our debate:

(1) You will recall that in the first round I stated: "Pro must initially present evidence. Pro should present empirical evidence (scholarly studies) in support of his burden of proof on the proposition. Con respectfully challenges Pro to submit such evidence."

I will simply observe that in this round you have not presented any empirical evidence, such as scholarly evidence, or even some opinion polls, in support of your burden of proof.

(2) You make the following arguments or offers of evidence (under each of which I will comment):

(A) "The first time I participated in a flag retirement ceremony I was told one of the reasons we do this is so that none may ever see our flag in a garbage dump. If we are not allowed to burn them this outcome will occur."

(A) COMMENT: This is unsupported opinion ( see definition 2a, http://www.merriam-webster.com... ), hearsay ( http://www.merriam-webster.com... ), and speculation (see 1 as transitive verb, http://www.merriam-webster.com... ). Neither I nor the forum/members/potential voters who are following this debate can assess the credibility of the person who made the statement to you. Thus, argument and evidence is unreliable.

(B) "As an Assistant Scoutmaster in my troop, I have observed new scouts half-hearted raise the flag in the opening ceremony. But after flag day when we had a flag retirement ceremony scheduled led by a navy veteran, they show much better patriotism now. Its almost as if they understand now the solemn way of saying the pledge of allegiance now."

(B) COMMENT:

The evidence is unreliable because it is anecdotal evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org... Further, and with respect, your observation is subject to criticism on the basis of being (a) prejudiced (see 2a http://www.merriam-webster.com... ), and (b) self-serving (http://www.merriam-webster.com... ).

(C) "One of our past presidents said "boy do we need scouts"; if you make illegal these retirement ceremonies this will only hurt the patriotism of our scouts. The pledge of allegiance remains for them just something they have to do."

(C) COMMENT:

The statement "...if you make illegal these retirement ceremonies this will only hurt the patriotism...", is also subject to the criticisms: unsupported by evidence; speculation; prejudice; self-serving, FINALLY, THE STATEMENT ASSUMES AS TRUE THE VERY PROPOSITION THAT YOU HAVE THE DUTY TO PROVE!

(D) "To often is flag burning debated about in ignorance of these retirement ceremonies. this method of burning a flag is a show of patriotism for our country. Where you to start messing with this form of freedom speech it will no doubt make it very easy for one loon to convince the people waving "don't tread on me" flags at all the fox news tea parties that it is time for the south to rise again."
"redirecting our patriotism away from our country to a non-existent country is most certainly going to be harmful to our patriotism for the country that is real, America."

(D) This is speculation.

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

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Marauder

Pro

Hello Tom, glad to hear what you think about the Boy Scouts Vs Dale case. Its sad when politics interferes with our organization. A lot of Order of the Arrow members have turned in their sashes to boycott the OA in a similar controversy about the admittance of women into the OA. I myself am not participating in this, I don't see what there problem is. Well, time to get back on topic....

My opponents arguments seem to summarize as
1) I'm speculating, I don't actually know any of this
2) I'm biased, and
3) combinations of the previous two.

I'll address the biased part first. You know marian biologist are also biased when they try to tell us about the fantastic fish they study in there field, of course they want us to believe they are fish so fantastic they can change colors or come with night lights, but we can not take there word the people who study the field since there biased. If my opponent can see where I'm going with this then his response will likely include stating I make the fallacy of arguing from authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
But they are clearly limits to witch this fallacy can be applied because its not logical to tell an electrician his authority is not good enough to proclaim that a resister in dead (or open) in a circuit we need him to fix. the fact that the marien biologist is in field studying those fish makes him reliable enough that we can say those fish are there on that simple authority. We would also be foolish to ignore him if he tells us don't corner the stingrays cause they can kill you should we decide to go scuba diving where he says those are located.

If I'm biased simply because I'm debating I could always invite the navy veteran who oversaw the ceremony to tell you about its importance, and its effects. But this notion is ridiculous cause I could never prove that its not still me typing from this computer. For this website my authority is as good as it can get in hearing about the retirement ceremonies and it should be good enough. when questioning experts from there field like the marien biologist you have to do more than call them biased to discount them, you have to show you know enough about there subject also that contradicts them. Like if he tells you two bones on the back of the whale used to be legs because they serve no function now you need to show him that you know in fact that those bones do have function relevant to reproduction today. Since you are familiar with scouts Tom perhaps you have been part of the organization yourself and can testify that outlawing our retirement ceremonies will not damage our next generations patriotism? If your not perhaps you can give a hyperlink to a Scoutmaster who testifies to something similar.

Concerning Comment A: (A) "The first time I participated in a flag retirement ceremony I was told one of the reasons we do this is so that none may ever see our flag in a garbage dump. If we are not allowed to burn them this outcome will occur."

(A) COMMENT: This is unsupported opinion ( see definition 2a, http://www.merriam-webster.com...... ), hearsay ( http://www.merriam-webster.com...... ), and speculation (see 1 as transitive verb, http://www.merriam-webster.com...... ). Neither I nor the forum/members/potential voters who are following this debate can assess the credibility of the person who made the statement to you. Thus, argument and evidence is unreliable.

My response to that is by the safety of Occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor we can safely say that the flags will in fact go to the garbage dumb. Throwing things away to the garbage and burning them are the two primary ways of dispose of outworn things. To recycle is a third option. with flags there is no way of recycling them ( that's not a POSITIVE so I shouldn't have to prove that) this leaves incineration and landfill. the purpose of this debate concerns itself with the outlawing of incineration. so that leaves garbage. You could try returning to the recycling idea since its not outlawed but it would take far to many assumptions compared to the dump. So with Occam's razor we conclude the worn out flags destination will be the dump.

as for comment B: you can call it an anecdote, I call it data. Historically shown effects of the dignified retirement of our nations flag on the patriotism of the next generation of this country. Patriotism organs in an individual must start somewhere, the most prime example of where its taught to our youth is scouts.

Comment C: I said that not in assuming the proposition but in conclusion from the already provided historic data of the retirements ceremony. You know typing in so many CAPITAL letters could be interpreted by shouting by voters and hence poor conduct. but no big deal with this occasion it could also be merely seen as emphasis of importance.

Comment D: fair enough. But it is believable speculation. Now when I say 'fair enough' I mean for the first half. the second half
"redirecting our patriotism away from our country to a non-existent country is most certainly going to be harmful to our patriotism for the country that is real, America."
I see nothing wrong with this logic. I don't think there's any doubt about the patriotism so many in the south decide to show for the Confederacy though this country no longer exist. With that factor to consider allowing for weakness in patriotism of our real country can only amplify when there is something else to turn in patriotism toward, especially when this thing encourages rebellion against the former.

Well that's all I have to say for this round. you are clearly more experienced than me at debating so I look forward to your response.
dogparktom

Con

I'll start by commenting on your:

(1) Argument from Authority Comments:

There are two kinds of testimonial evidence: EXPERT and NON-EXPERT. The expert has specialized knowledge of a subject such as, for example, marine biology. The non-expert has no specialized knowledge. I'm a non-expert relative to both marine biology and scouting. If I made statements about marine biology and scouting, a person hearing them would properly be skeptical of such statements. He or she would properly say that my opinions have very little evidential value. 1

On the other hand, the CONSIDERED OPINIONS expressed in their subject of expertise by EXPERTS have evidential value, e.g. an opinion about sharks expressed by a marine biologist who had studied sharks. By a CONSIDERED OPINION, I mean an opinion formed after the expert has used an appropriate SCIENTIFIC methodology in studying the issue in question. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

I suspect that there are EXPERTS in Scouting, perhaps at the national headquarters. Further, I suspect that such experts have expressed opinions on the practice of flag retirement by burning and the practice's relation to the patriotism of scouts.

I CHALLENGE you to present such expert testimonial evidence.

(2) You state: " If I'm biased simply because I'm debating I could always invite the navy veteran who oversaw the ceremony to tell you about its importance, and its effects."

And I and the potential voters would want to know if he was an EXPERT or a NON-EXPERT and what his experience and credentials were. We would then make a judgment on his credibility and on the evidential value of his opinion.

Basically, my criticisms have been criticisms of the evidence that you have presented and not presented in support of your burden of proof.

(3) Regarding "flag burning," a distinction should be made 'flag retirement by burning' ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) and 'flag desecration' ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ).

This debate relates to outlawing flag retirement by burning. The U.S. Flag Code, supra, provides:

"When a flag is so tattered that it can no longer serve as a symbol of the United States, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. The American Legion, Boy Scouts of America[5], Girl Scouts of the USA[6] and other organizations regularly conduct dignified flag-burning ceremonies, often on Flag Day, June 14."

I argue that flag retirement by burning should be outlawed. I am absolutely opposed to burning the flag for any reason. I am absolutely opposed to all public flag burning ceremonies. The less that the flag is burned in public, the less the act of flag burning will be in the peoples' consciousness. The less that the act of flag burning exists in the public consciousness, the less likely it is that political dissenters will burn the flag to express their dissent.

The Flag Code, supra, states that flags "should be destroyed in a dignified manner." I argue that rather than destruction by burning, flags can and should be destroyed by an alternative method that is dignified. That method is this: because flags are small in size, the flag's owner can privately BURY the flag anywhere (in his backyard, in a forest, on a farm, etc.) The flag in due course will disintegrate naturally causing no pollution, whereas burning the flag causes pollution of the air.

If my proposed method of flag retirement is adopted, eventually no one will burn the flag to express their political protest. In fact, it may be that the disappearance of flag burning from contemporary may even result in the disappearance of flag desecration by other means to express political protest.

Finally, rather than public flag retirement ceremonies, there are other methods of promoting patriotism through the use of the flag. Here is an example: http://www.herald-mail.com... I argue that this PUBLIC ACT by a boy scout troop promotes patriotism.

Thus, I favor a law outlawing 'flag retirement by burning' and a law recommending 'flag retirement by private burying.'

HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

__________________________________
1 " On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism."http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Marauder

Pro

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!

1) As according to your challenge, here I am. You suspect that the experts on this subject are head council members like Chris Dempsey or Justin Dan McCarthy. These people are experts at Boy Scout Paperwork stuff. They don't have time to hang out in the 'field' and see firsthand just how the reverence of these retirement ceremonies by burning have on our scouts, the kids that our organization is all about. If these guys have any knowledge about how it's good or bad, its from there past experience as a Scoutmaster or Assistant Scoutmaster or parent of a scout while they still were in the 'field' working with the scouts. And this referred to position is one that I currently hold, Assistant Scoutmaster.

I know it sounds kind of arrogant to label myself the expert for this topic but there is no other source worth going to for this topic than the volunteers who actually talk to the scouts, and better yet were once these scouts. I can tell you during my time as a scout my patriotism was greatly shaken by this video.
And you know what boosted it back up? Participating in one of these flag retirement ceremonies. there is not much better evidence for how this practice we are arguing on affects a scout, than for a scout to tell you just how it affected him.

2) His credentials you would find are very similar to mine, if not greater. he's been an assistant scoutmaster since I started scouts. the fact he even holds a retirement ceremony shows he views the practice as worthwhile. But as I said I could never prove to you that it's not still me typing on this computer only claiming to be him.

3) You said: 'Regarding "flag burning," a distinction should be made 'flag retirement by burning' ( http://en.wikipedia.org...... ) and 'flag desecration' ( http://en.wikipedia.org...... ).'

well not in this debate, see round one. Even if I were to give focus in this debate to flag desecration it remains damaging to patriotism because in order to outlaw that the bill of rights must be changed witch is the pillar that Americans primarily use to justify their patriotism to this country. this is a great country because we can say what we want, hence think what we want and not be punished by our country for it. Freedom of speech 'with exceptions' is not freedom at all. American patriotism and the gratefulness for our freedom go hand in hand.

4) I would like to address this point you made because it is the first time this debate you have actually argued against the flag retirement ceremony I cited rather than argue about how I have argued.

"I argue that flag retirement by burning should be outlawed. I am absolutely opposed to burning the flag for any reason. I am absolutely opposed to all public flag burning ceremonies. The less that the flag is burned in public, the less the act of flag burning will be in the peoples' consciousness. The less that the act of flag burning exists in the public consciousness, the less likely it is that political dissenters will burn the flag to express their dissent."

It's interesting how this argument is subject to the same criticisms you gave my arguments, that this is just speculation.
However I do not guess this matters much since as you said you are supporting a negative.

Either way, you speculation is wrong. How would you define public? is it 3 people together somewhere that are not related? what about 10? Are my scout troop meetings public? what of family reunions at a school house? Is school public when people have to go there? Dissenter's will find somewhere to burn there flags in the presence of others, maybe even people who are not one of them, if its outlawed. Far worse for them to regularly burn flags only among themselves for that makes for a stronger unified cult. this stronger cult has more resolve to commit to something like rebellion; and history shows that kind of attitude spreads. http://en.wikipedia.org...

5) You then proposed flag owner's privately bury there flag anywhere. Like the word public, privately is left undefined. Are the scouts cut out of this? without grown-ups there, should his patriotism been shaken by the Loose change video he may use this 'private' opportunities to privately desecrate the flag, not dignify. thus cementing his anti-patriotism.
On another point here, see how reliable Occam's razor was? I said if you don't incinerate it that leaves landfill. you have simply specified special locations for the landfill for only flags (rather than the public dump). you might be right about the ground pollution if all flags were made out of cotton. http://www.custommadeflags.com...
but a lot are made of plastic. And don't worry about the air pollution there are holes in the Ozone so it will seep out =).

6) "In fact, it may be that the disappearance of flag burning from contemporary may even result in the disappearance of flag desecration by other means to express political protest."
No; Logically other means will increase in public since the method of burning has been made illegal for them, they have to resort to other methods, such as peeing on the flag, painting swastikas on it, maybe they will become creative with the flag pole and replace the eagle with an Iron fist. All that will really be accomplished is elimination of the preferred way of retirement of the flag with dignity.

7) You are right about this. "there are other methods of promoting patriotism through the use of the flag. Here is an example: http://www.herald-mail.com...... I argue that this PUBLIC ACT by a boy scout troop promotes patriotism."
but its also irrelevant. there are lots of way's of venerating our country, like singing to the national anthem, or to Toby Keith's Courtesy of the Red White and Blue. But limiting the freedom of how we may express that veneration will harm patriotism. there is a great deal of good symbolism we have with fire that is not offered with leaving them on tombstones. Fire is a reference to light. So often this country is called a city on a hill because we light the way by example. Fire is light. Fire is also symbolic for energy, enthusiasm, passion. This is appropriate for patriotism for the heart of this country (as it ought to be anyway).
The veterans buried in the cemetery referred to in the herald are symbolic of people who fought to protect there families, not necessarily there country.

That's all I've got for this round. One more to go!
dogparktom

Con

As a practical matter, flag burnings as political protests have ceased to occur in the U.S. My Google search for "flag burning" incidents in 2009' resulted in no incidents.
http://wbztv.com... It seems that the only folks who are burning the flag are the Boy Scouts.

I still argue that a private burial of a flag by a scout troop is a more dignified and respectful manner of flag retirement than burning.
Debate Round No. 4
Marauder

Pro

Wow! Your right about the lack of incidents in flag desecration. That is just cool. Here is my theory about why that is, and this would be supported by nearly any News commentator on any channel if they are even half right. In 2008 the people who would have been burning the flag were busy helping Barrack Obama campaign. after his election they now like our country and have no reason to burn the flag.

If not then it could just be a slow year. Either way the short absence of the practice for two years doesn't prove they wont start again, people are whimsical that way. As soon as Obama does something they don't like desecration of flag may start again. http://cache.daylife.com...

Also, even if for now on the only ones burning the flag are the scouts, that only shows it's only use is in patriotism now and it's being outlawed will only interfere with this preferred act of patriotism in the retirement of the flag.
It is good that we are the only ones still burning the flag for now we define what burning the flag means. If the people who still think it is disgraceful were not so ignorant of this they would see that it is an honorable act. once we all can see this is not a problem we will have one less wedge issue wasting our Congresses time. They waste enough time on there own.

My opponent claims he still argues that burial is more respectful and dignified than incineration. Yet he provides no argument to go with that claim. It would more appropriate to say It's still his opinion, which fascinating as that is is not an argument. How could burial possible be more dignified. The flag will spend the of its day's to be trodden by whatever creature should walk over that spot. Covered in dirty dirt and surrounded by worms and bugs. An object that spent its life venerating it's country by flying high in the air being in dirt is sad image to behold. These are the sybolisms that dirt offers our flag. Tom you have said nothing of how fire is representative of light, and passion, or how as smoke our flag remains in the air as far as observer will mentally follow is disposal. Can you put together a ceremony that counts as private burial that offers greater symbolism than this? If not than retirement by fire shall remain the preferred method.

In conclusion we can say from this debate that
1) burial is not better than burning.
2) pollution is not different in either case
3) the retirement has noticeable good affects on our youths patriotism.
4) Outlawing flag burning outlaws this good practice.
5) And finally, the desecration this law is worrying about is not even taking place anymore by method of burning.

So such a law only manages to tread on those who are being patriotic, and bothering no one. Quite pointless.
And harmful.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com...'S+A+SYMBOL,+NOT+AN+IDOL.-a0147804426
dogparktom

Con

PRO, MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Pro

Wow! Your right about the lack of incidents in flag desecration. That is just cool. Here is my theory about why that is, and this would be supported by nearly any News commentator on any channel if they are even half right. In 2008 the people who would have been burning the flag were busy helping Barrack Obama campaign. after his election they now like our country and have no reason to burn the flag.

If not then it could just be a slow year. Either way the short absence of the practice for two years doesn't prove they wont start again, people are whimsical that way. As soon as Obama does something they don't like desecration of flag may start again. http://cache.daylife.com......

I THINK THAT THE ABSENCE OF FLAG BURNINGS AS POLITICAL PROTESTS HAS BEEN FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THE WTO PROTESTS IN SEATTLE IN 1999.
http://www.globalissues.org... THEY WERE SO WIDE SPREAD THAT THE CITY AUTHORITIES LOST CONTROL OF THE CITY. I REMEMBER WATCHING THE PROTESTS ON TV. I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY FLAG BURNINGS. I GOOGLED 'WTO PROTESTS SEATTLE' http://images.google.com... DO YOU SEE ANY US FLAG BURNINGS IN THESE IMAGES? I DID NOT.

Also, even if for now on the only ones burning the flag are the scouts, that only shows it's only use is in patriotism now and it's being outlawed will only interfere with this preferred act of patriotism in the retirement of the flag.
It is good that we are the only ones still burning the flag for now we define what burning the flag means. If the people who still think it is disgraceful were not so ignorant of this they would see that it is an honorable act. once we all can see this is not a problem we will have one less wedge issue wasting our Congresses time. They waste enough time on there own.

My opponent claims he still argues that burial is more respectful and dignified than incineration. Yet he provides no argument to go with that claim. It would more appropriate to say It's still his opinion, which fascinating as that is is not an argument. How could burial possible be more dignified.

THE SCOUTS PARTICIPATE IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER IN FUNERALS HELD TO CELEBRATE THE LIFE OF A DECEASED SCOUT AND OTHERS:

Scout Funeral Services

On occasion, a troop may experience the loss of a Scout or leader. It is a difficult time for everyone. At the request of the family or with the permission of the family and religious leader, Scouts may participate in the funeral and memorial service to celebrate the life of the Scout or leader. Some things that may be appropriate include:

Attending in uniform
Sitting together as a unit
Serving as honorary pallbearers or ushers.
Serving during the service by doing such things as reciting the Scout Oath or Law.
The primary concern is for the family and its preferences. The involvement of the troop or Scouts in the troop is at the discretion of the family and its religious leaders.

Funeral Service for Scout or Scouter
This outline is merely a guide. The wishes of the Family and spiritual advisor take precedent.

Processional
Color Guard brings in US flag and Troop flag
Pallbearers follow
Scouts and Scouters in Uniform follow
Opening Prayer
Almighty Father, as we grieve the loss of (Name of Deceased), help us to remember his involvement with Scouting. Show us how he lived the Scout oath and law. We ask that you comfort us as we will miss his friendship and fellowship.
Pastoral Comments
(Highlights of the Deceased's life and Scouting accomplishments)
Song: "On My Honor"
Readings: (Listed below are some suggestions.)
Psalms 23:1-6
Psalms 37:5
Jeremiah 29:11
I Corinthians 15:54-57
Comments from friends.
"Scout Vespers"
Closing Benediction
"May the Great Scoutmaster of all Scouts be with us until we meet again, and may our footsteps lead unto Him."
Taps
Recessional "
http://www.scouting.org...

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BOY SCOUTS COULD RETIRE A FLAG BY DIGNIFIED BURIAL RATHER THAN BY BURNING.

The flag will spend the of its day's to be trodden by whatever creature should walk over that spot. Covered in dirty dirt and surrounded by worms and bugs. An object that spent its life venerating it's country by flying high in the air being in dirt is sad image to behold. These are the sybolisms that dirt offers our flag.

Tom you have said nothing of how fire is representative of light, and passion, or how as smoke our flag remains in the air as far as observer will mentally follow is disposal. Can you put together a ceremony that counts as private burial that offers greater symbolism than this?

NO, I PROBABLY COULD NOT. BUT THE SCOUTS COULD CERTAINLY CREATE A DIGNIFIED FLAG BURIAL CEREMONY.

If not than retirement by fire shall remain the preferred method.

In conclusion we can say from this debate that
1) burial is not better than burning.
2) pollution is not different in either case
3) the retirement has noticeable good affects on our youths patriotism.
4) Outlawing flag burning outlaws this good practice.
5) And finally, the desecration this law is worrying about is not even taking place anymore by method of burning.

So such a law only manages to tread on those who are being patriotic, and bothering no one. Quite pointless.
And harmful.

IN CONCLUSION, LET ME SAY THAT I HAVE ENJOYED THIS STIMULATING DEBATE. THANK YOU, PRO. I'VE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT SCOUTING.

MY POSITION IS SIMPLE. I REVERE THE US FLAG. I HAVE ALWAYS DETESTED FLAG BURNINGS AS POLITICAL PROTESTS AND HOPE TO NEVER SEE ONE AGAIN. I AM OPPOSED TO FLAG BURNINGS IN PRINCIPLE. FOR FLAG RETIREMENT, I ARGUE THAT A DIGNIFIED BURIAL CEREMONY IS PREFERABLE AND FEASIBLE.

IF PUBLIC FLAG RETIREMENTS BY BURNING CONTINUE, AS PRO DESIRES, IT IS LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE SOME INCIDENTS OF FLAG BURNINGS AS POLITICAL PROTESTS IN THE FUTURE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF FLAGS ARE RETIRED BY PRIVATE DIGNIFIED BURIAL CEREMONIES, IT LESS LIKELY THAT POLITICAL ACTIVISTS WILL EXPRESS THERE PROTEST BY BURNING THE FLAG.

VOTERS, VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Tom, I could have sworn that in round four you cited me a source that showed a flag burning in 2007. That's three years ago. Oh well debates over now. Guess you want me to choose shorter voting periods from now on, ha ha.

I can see why your undefeated, every round you managed to bring up something different. I enjoyed such a debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Good analysis, Daniel...

I am of the habit of deciding my vote before reading the comments; if there is something important to voting in the comments, I can always change my vote. In this case, Daniel's breakdown of the arguments was in a very similar vein to my own thought on this; so I will spend little time threshing things out further.

C: Pro. Con drops almost all of Pro's arguments in R4 without comment. Also Con's somewhat abusive interpretation of BoP factors in here.
SP/G: Tied. Pro has a little trouble with capitalization, which I found slightly annoying; but it did not interfere with understanding, so I let it slide.
A: Pro. Con drops all of Pro's arguments, and failed to make a case based on anything but his own admittedly non-expert opinion.
S: Pro. Con leans heavily on Wikipedia; Pro cites from a variety of sources, including the Boy Scouts of America.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
This one is hard to vote on. Con spent most of his time arguing about the form of the debate instead of the subject, while Pro was disingenuous about the subject of the debate, so I gave conduct a tie. Only Pro made any attempt, to back up his position, and Con never refuted that one attempt, so I gave convincing arguments to Pro. (See below for details.)

Con's entire first argument about positive and negative burdens was kind of silly. Just because a statement has a "not" in it doesn't make it a negative burden. Note: "Even if flag burning is outlawed, patriotism will maintain at its current level or increase." means the same as "outlawing the burning of Americas flag will not hurt patriotism." I agree with Con that Pro had the burden of proof, I'm simply saying that Con's reasons for coming to that conclusion were wrong.

In round 3, Con did make a positive claim but didn't back it up in any way. His logic for claiming that outlawing flag retirement by public burning would reduce the number of acts of flag burning in protest is specious at best, and as Pro rightly pointed out, Con's argument is subject to the same criticism that Con leveled at Pro's argument. Con talked the talk, but he didn't walk the walk.

Con effectively forfeited round 4.

Pro's argument was a classic bait and switch, which he openly admitted to. He claimed to be an authority figure on the subject, but had nothing but anecdotal evidence. He did, however, have one logical argument buried among the chaff (in round 4.) Outlawing flag burning will reduce the number of legal methods of expressing patriotism. "... limiting the freedom of how we may express that veneration will harm patriotism," and Con never even attempted to refute that.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
There's no loss in hurting patriotism.
Posted by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
PRO, the VOTING HAS STARTED. BUT FOR A YEAR! THAT IS TOO LONG. I'M AN OLD FART. I MAY NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO LEARN WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE WON THE DEBATE. HA HA
TOM
Posted by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
Penn & Teller - Patriotism
4 min 33 sec - May 13, 2007 -
Penn & Teller's flag burning trick
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4 - Related videos
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Are you American?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
MarauderdogparktomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
MarauderdogparktomTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
MarauderdogparktomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
MarauderdogparktomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
MarauderdogparktomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
MarauderdogparktomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
MarauderdogparktomTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by NickBean 7 years ago
NickBean
MarauderdogparktomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
MarauderdogparktomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07