The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should the Confederate Flag be publicly flown/shown?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 81644
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




We shouldn't force ANYONE to see the Confederate Battle flag, and if we take it down from flagpoles, no one will have to see it. I'm not saying that the Confederate Battle Flag is bad in any way, but it could inspire children to find out more, even without their parents' approval. If a child's parents want their child to grow up sheltered, then they can do that while still bringing their child into public areas without the risk of them seeing anything they shouldn't. On the other hand, if a parent wants their child to grow up open to the subject, then they can do something about that at home. It is always better to be on the safe side of things, which is why you don't i.e.go around asking 'fat' women if they are pregnant, it is completely offensive. It's just not something that reasonable people do, neither should they be allowed to show the Confederate Battle Flag in public--it's just not right to put someone through that kind of pressure. Even though the freedom of speech, freedom of religion a.k.a. ideologies, and right to peacefully protest (I'm not fully sure whether or not this is protesting), proves me right. Parents have the right to parent their children how they want to, as long as how they do it/what they preach to their children does not harm the United States of America in any way.

If I could get responses quickly, that would be best. Please spread this debate to your friends and family so that they can take their stance in this debate, it would help a lot since I am doing this as my report in my challenge English-History class, and it'd be GREAT if you guys could help me out!!! Thanks to each and every one of you who participates in my debate (XOXO to you all!). If you want me o participate in one of YOUR debates, just give me the URL, after you comment and participate in mine ;-P

If you've read this far, good luck and lots of love (a.k.a. LOL (lol wtf)).



The question of 'should' x be y is more applicable to the individual than to society, so I will answer the in general question of why a prohibition on the public display of the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, as it is more properly known.

You make the idea that a parent has a right to shield a child from reality, and this is a dangerous idea. Things are not as black and white as most people try to play it off at home, in particular when it comes to ideologies, and symbolism. Imagine the culture shock of someone who is raised completely sheltered. I have seen it, these people can barely function as they have no coping mechanisms to deal with the reality around them.

The purpose of the First Amendment, and in fact any concept of Freedom of Speech, isn't to protect that speech or that expression, which is popular at the time. On the contrary, those forms need no protection, what is needed is to protect the ideas that we don't support, those that we can't abide by, and this is an important hallmark of a civilized society. That we allow those elements with whom we disagree to display, and publicly speak shows that we can disagree with the dissenting voice, and still respect their positions, in addition it leaves us open to greater understanding. Just because someone is of a group we disagree with, doesn't mean they don't have a valid point, even if it is a hate group there is likely some truth to be found and utilized within their speech, perhaps it is as simple as education, or exposure.

While a parent should have limited rights to parent their child in any way the deem fit, keep in mind, neglect is a choice too. Would you support fully neglectful parenting? Then why neglect their cultural development?
Debate Round No. 1


But when I say that a child has the right to be shielded, and the parent has the right to shield, I mean a young child, a really young child, even if it doesn't apply to them alone. I have been to a private school for 3 years (i have just transitioned to public) and I see plenty of kids who are shielded from the FULL extent of this, yet who have some LIMITED knowledge of the topic, and they are not necessarily in the dark. They do, in fact, have their own opinions on the topic, but they do not get into the arguments or fights over the debate that perhaps others do get into. These sheltered children can either choose to participate in the debate or not, or even to have a vote and say, but not be an extremist.

The Confederate Battle Flag, also, can be extremely oppressive to some people, and may even cause suicides, or cutting, or any other harmful things either to themselves or others.

I have a new page on Instagram to extend this debate to extend this debate and anyone else"s, just DM me at: debate.org_extends


Anyone can choose, or choose to not, participate in society. However to shield the truth from children, is a form of pathological lie. You insist that this idea must not exist.

In the case of the flag in question, a large number of people who bore it did not consider it as a flag of southern oppression of enslaved peoples, but rather as a reminder of their heritage, which yes included that dark period, but also includes a great many positive things. Much like people who have redefined gender to be separate from biological sex, the flag was redefined. Now it seems that a small segment of the population wishes to redefine it again.

As to your last comment, you have no right to be shielded from feelings of oppression in public. You have no right to the expectation of not being offended. In a society that values free expression and free speech, you are guaranteed to be offended and even oppressed at some point.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes, the Flag and it's times indeed brought many new things to society, for the good and for the bad. But still, parents can choose whether or not to shield their children and enforce that, for the child's own protection. Perhaps if the child gets older, they can (and will) learn about the evil, but for now, lets let their childhood last--the innocence of a child only lasts until they encounter darkness. Then they shall be let loose, but, as they say, "you only get to be young once". The innocence of children has inspired many a great things in this world, and may even have triggered the events leading to the creation of the Flag itself.
The Constitution protects the right of an adult to parent their child(ren) as long as they meet standard/basic parenting requirements, and in no way does sheltering do anything against that, and all in all, this flag is, to more people than not, utterly 'de-' and 'o-' pressing, and keeping something like it around can, as I said in Round 2, lead to many bad things for either themselves (oppressed) or others. The Bill of Rights (Bill 1) protects the right to peacefully protest, but the question is: Are the Confederate Flags actually 'peaceful' protesting?
I don't think so: if it directly leads to self-harm, violence, and crime, then it isn't peaceful, at least not in my world. But it isn't my world, and anyone can thing whatever the bloody h* they want to, I don't give a s*.

Thanks for all, ~The Self


Your entire argument seems to boil down to, 'to protect the children'. Rights are not subject to limitations such as these. The minute you allow a right to be suspended for any one reason, you are invalidating it as a right to begin with. Free expression and speech, for that matter every right, must be protected first. If as a society we value individual rights, we are protecting children, and indeed everyone, from far greater harms than they could ever be exposed to because they have seen, or heard, or experienced something we wish they hadn't.

As terrible as it sounds, even a child 'harmed' by the execution of someone else's right is an acceptable loss on the larger scale.

As to protesting, unless direct violence is engaged, yes it would be peaceful protesting. But you are missing the larger point, it is expression in this case that counts, not 'protest' and that expression must be protected. If society doesn't protect the speech and expression is doesn't like, then it can not be said to believe in those freedoms. If it doesn't believe in those freedoms, then it is cultural hypocrisy at best to claim otherwise.

There are probably as many people offended, oppressed, and depressed by the 'black power' salute. Should it too be banned? What about the military salute, I am certain I can find people who would see it as oppressive? In an open and free society, you have no right to go about in public and be free of offense, or similar emotions, in fact in a free society, you are guaranteed to experience these emotions as a result of interaction with people whose right to speak openly about their beliefs are protected.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.