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

The United States of America should not prohibit burning the American Flag

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,098 times Debate No: 78925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (1)




The United States of America should not ban burning the American Flag in their country

I as Pro will argue for not banning the burning of the American Flag

Con, will argue it needs to be banned.

No K's

BOP is shared

Good luck


United States of America

a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminousstates, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, andHawaii in the N Pacific. Conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq.mi. (7,827,982 sq. km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi.(9,363,166 sq. km).


To prohibit (an action) or forbid the use of (something), especially by official decree


Setting on fire

American Flag

Official Flag of the United States of America


Pro has failed to say whether first round is for acceptance or not. As this is the case, I will assume it is.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting Con.

I would just like to mention I do not support burning our flag. Its disrespectful and there are many more ways of protesting. But I still think we should have the freedom to do it. After all, that's what America was built on.

Why Flag Burning should not be banned

C1: Its unconstitutional

Flag burning is protected by the 1st Ammendment in the constitution. The 1st ammendment states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Since flag burning can be used as a form of free speech, it would be unconstitutional to ban it.

C2: It can be used as a form of protest

Flag burning can be a way of protesting against the government for some policies it has set. For example, many protesters were burning flags to protest U.S involvement in Vietnam. Whether or not it actually made a difference, it could have, and protesters should have the right to do it.

C3: Your morals cannot dictate what others should believe in

I understand why people are against it, and I agree. Its disrespectful, and is unnessary. But what your morals are cannot dictate what others want to do. If people want to burn the flag, they can, but they will be condemned by many. Banning this would only go against what our founding fathers believed in, Freedom and Liberty.

Over to you Con.



Contention 1 Rebuttal- Flag burning CAN be used as a form of free speech. Even then, it is still reprehensible, but it is protected by the Bill of Rights. However, when it is not used as a form of speech or protest, the constitution does not protect it. (ex."Hey! Look! An American Flag! Let's burn it!"). I am aware that this isn't what happens in all or even most scenarios, but Con presumably means that flag burning shouldn't be banned under any circumstances. Nudity is prohibited except in the form of protest, but it is still banned, just with an exception. This proves contention 1, and 2, to be utterly invalid.

Contention 2 Rebuttal- Refer to contention 1 rebuttal.

Contention 3- Disturbing funerals is against the law, because it is against people's morals, and because death is a tragedy, and not a joke.This is especially true for the deaths of American soldiers, who, not to sound like a redneck but it is true, fought for our freedom.
Debate Round No. 2




Con, you technically already conceded a huge point. Flag Burning is covered in the constitution. In Texas v. Johnson, the judges already ruled that flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech". It doesn't specify specific circumstances where it is illegal, therefore we must assume it is for all cases.(2)

You commit a huge fallacy. Simply saying Nudity is allowed in certain circumstances isn't a good argument. Nudity is illegal due to public indecency laws. There are no such law for flag burning, therefore it is incorrect to make such comparison. You make another comparisons to disturbing funerals. Before I fully refute this, I would like to you give me a source which states that.




C1: Flag burning only constitutes free speech when it is used for protest, not when done for other reasons, such as helping to start a fire or just for the fun of it. It may not be illegal, but it should be when not done in the form of a protest.

C2: Again, flag burning should have the same laws apply to it as public nudity does. (ex. flag burning would be illegal except in the form of a protest.
Debate Round No. 3


This probably the shortest rebutall I have ever written on this site.

C1: Your arguments are based on appeal to emotion. If you are going to say it should be illegal besides protest, you should explain why. Just because Nudity is banned, doesn't mean its a good reason to ban Flag Burning. I have already established that is uncontitutional, which means it goes against the 1st ammendment. You haven't really explained why Flag Burning should be given an exception in certain cases.

My arguments still stand.



You don't have to explain why it should be illegal. Necrophilia is illegal because it's disrespectful to the dead. Same goes for flag burning.

I don't think Pro supports necrophilia, so his arguments, as a matter of fact, do NOT stand.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
tajshar sorry im just messing with youXD
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
Ok dude, calm down. I didn't mean to insult you. FYI, I said it's my debate, because I instigated it. You know, I created the debate?

I called you arrogant because you lashed out at me calling me arrogant, when I didn't actually say anything that would remotely indicate me of being arrogant. I'm sorry you are too sensitive but I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I'm not that kind of guy.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Wow. You first have the nerve to call ME arrogant, then you say this is your debate. This is MY debate, idiot. MINE.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
What? You arrogantly said you think I won, when you literally proved nothing in my debate. How am I being arrogant? Please explain.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
Wow arrogance much? I didn't say anything mean to you! God, back in my day people were so much more polite.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
You failed to prove anything.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
I think I won.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Clear Con win.
Posted by DATXDUDE 1 year ago
he's been commenting on all of my debates lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that banning flag burning is a violation of free speech and that the right to do so is granted in the Constitution. Con replies by saying that flag burning should be illegal in some cases, but never provides a single argument as to why. Con statss that nudity is illegal, But never provides a link between nudity and flag burning in terms of policy. Pro points out the right to free speech as given in the law of the land, and Con dismisses it without a rebuttal. Con concludes his argument with the line: "You don't have to explain why it should be illegal". This is a refusal to argue, which Con clearly did, and thus loses the arguments point.