Instigator / Con
14
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Topic
#3929
Resolved: Flag desecration in the US as an act of protest should be outlawed.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
3
1488
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Resolved: Flag desecration in the US as an act of protest should be outlawed.
BoP: The burden of proof is shared. PRO must prove that flag burning as an act of protest should be outlawed. CON must prove that flag burning as an act of protest should not be outlawed.
Definitions (taken from a variety of online sources, in order to better describe the context of this debate):
Flag desecration: various acts that intentionally destroy, damage, or mutilate a flag in public.
US: United States.
Protest: a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.
Should: used to say or suggest that something is the proper, reasonable, or best thing to do.
Outlawed: made illegal; banned.
Limitations:
-This debate only applies to flag desecration in the US, and to the flag desecration of the US flag.
-This debate only addresses burning a legally obtained flag in a way that causes minimal danger.
-This debate only applies to flag desecration as an act of protest – this is separate from burning a flag to respectfully dispose of it.
Rules:
-No Kritiks
-No personal attacks
-Once the debate starts, you may not object to or change the definitions, limitations, and rules provided.
-This is not a trap debate. If you have a problem with the definitions, limitations, or rules, talk with me in the comments before the debate starts.
Structure:
R1: Constructive arguments (no direct rebuttals)
R2: Rebuttals/defense
R3: Rebuttals/defense
R3: Conclusion (no new arguments)
Round 1
Con
#1
Thank you, Chernobyl, for accepting this debate.
Definitions:
By accepting this debate, my opponent has agreed to the definitions provided in the description.
Burden of Proof (BoP):
As mentioned in the description, I have the BoP that flag desecration should not be outlawed, while my opponent must prove the converse with equal evidence.
Framework (winning conditions):
I will win this debate if I can prove that not outlawing flag desecration is the “proper, reasonable, or best thing to do.”
Preamble:
I will aim to prove my case on two fronts, which will together fulfill my side of the burden of proof.
Contention 1:
P1: Freedom of expression is legally protected by the 1st amendment.
P2: Flag desecration is a form of freedom of expression.
C1: Flag desecration is legally protected by the 1st amendment.
Contention 2:
Desecrating the US flag honors and appreciates the very values it represents; outlawing that would do the very opposite.
Arguments:
First, I will prove my first contention – that is, flag desecration is legally protected by the 1st amendment. I will do this by extending and proving both the major and minor terms of the syllogism I showed above.
P1: Freedom of expression is legally protected by the 1st amendment.
This is simple to prove. The 1st amendment to the Bill of Rights explicitly states: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” [1] In addition, hundreds of years of precedent have upheld the 1st amendment, finding that with few exceptions (most of them having to do with potentially dangerous speech), the 1st amendment allows anyone to speak their opinion, regardless of how unpopular it is.
P2: Flag desecration is a form of freedom of expression.
I will prove this part in two ways. First, I will demonstrate how historical precedents have upheld flag desecration as a form of speech. Second, I will show how exactly flag desecration is “symbolic speech,” even if it is an action.
In 1989, Texas vs Johnson, a landmark Supreme Court case, ruled that the act of burning a flag was indeed protected under the 1st amendment. [2].
This important ruling was affirmed in later years. When the Flag Protection Act was passed in response to the ruling, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in United States vs Eichman. [3]
Furthermore, in both these rulings, the court found that flag desecration was symbolic speech. In Spence vs Washington, they defined exactly what symbolic speech is. Namely, it must “have an intent to convey a particularized message was present” and “in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” [4]
Burning the flag in public fulfills both important conditions. Clearly, it meets the first one; people don’t burn flags in public for fun – it’s always a form of protest against the government. It also meets the second condition: burning the flag is a universally recognized form of protest.
C1: Flag desecration is legally protected by the 1st amendment.
By thoroughly proving both the major and minor terms of the syllogism, I have reached this sound conclusion. Clearly, something that is “legally protected” cannot be outlawed. I rest my case.
Second, after proving that outlawing flag desecration should not, and cannot, be allowed, I will prove that desecrating the US flag honors the values it represents.
To make a rhetorical point, I’d like to first quote from Bill Frist, a senator who introduced the controversial Flag Protection Amendment in 2006 (it failed to pass in the Senate). He said, and I quote, “The flag is not only the physical symbol of our nation, our pride and our history, but also of our values: freedom, justice, independence, equality and, ultimately, we the people.” [5]
When you closely examine this statement however, it almost seems to defeat itself. Our nation takes pride in our civil liberties and values. Outlawing flag desecration would go against that.
Our nation has a proud history of rebelling against Britain due to unjust laws. We burned British symbols and flags in protest of infringement of our rights. [6] Outlawing flag desecration would go against that.
Our nation holds a few fundamental values dear: “freedom, justice, independence, equality, and ultimately, we the people.” Yet when we the people desecrate the flag, in order to protest the lack of justice and equality in our nation, we are upholding, and using, the values of freedom and independence that the very flag stands for. Outlawing flag desecration would go against that.
Conclusion:
In my not-so-concise opening speech, I have approached the subject of flag desecration from two ways. First, I have analyzed it from a calm legal standpoint, by citing several important Supreme Court precedents to demonstrate how flag desecration is indeed legally protected. Second, I have analyzed it from a rhetorical and symbolic standpoint, by showing one of the main arguments in favor of outlawing flag desecration, then tearing it to pieces by demonstrating how self-defeating it really is.
I have fulfilled my side of the burden of proof, and set up the framework for the rest of the debate. I look forward to my opponent’s response.
Sources:
Pro
#2
First of all, I'd like to thank AustinL0926 for his insightful analysis of the debate's topic. I'll base my argument on refuting the CON's points one by one.
Premise: The CON's framework is based on proving how (sic!) "not outlawing flag desecration is the “proper, reasonable, or best thing to do.”". The winning condition is based on a subjective rather than a legal standard, considering the different points of view regarding this matter which makes it impossible for one to state whether flag desecration is morally correct. Superfluous legal jargon aside, I'll go ahead with my arguments.
Contention 1, P1: "Freedom of expression is legally protected by the 1st amendment."
Nolo contendere on this.
Contention 1, P2: "Flag desecration is a form of freedom of expression."
While from a legal standpoint flag desecration indeed is a form of freedom of expression (as confirmed by the landmark decisions you rightfully mentioned), the definition you set for "should" is (and I quote): "used to say or suggest that something is the proper, reasonable, or best thing to do. ". This does not limit the US Government legally - nor us personally - to criticize the Supreme Court landmark decisions that have overruled previously adopted statutes enacted in order to outlaw the flag desecration in public, and it certainly does not prohibit the US Congress from editing the Constitution in a way that it would exempt burning the US flag from the conditions of freedom of expression (this sort of US Constitution addition has already been discussed - and is currently still to be passed within the Legislature - by the US Congress, and is currently hanging in the balance. See Flag Desecration Amendment). I certainly won't be making this a battle of discussing semantics since we both have agreed on them already, but the definition you gave of "should" is important to be contextualized in this case. [1]
Contention 2: "Desecrating the US flag honors and appreciates the very values it represents; outlawing that would do the very opposite."
Prima facie, it would be safe to say that you are right on this. However, going further through your argument, it can be observed how it is based initially on a straw man argument (question: how is outlawing the desecration of the US flag an attack on the American history & the ideals for which we the People stand?), then using the same argument to describe how it somehow goes against the "ideals of the United States" to outlaw the desecration of the flag. Once again, the question itself contains an important word: "should". While within the current status burning the US flag (in this case, as a form of protest) is completely legal, it does not mean that it necessarily be, and it most importantly does not mean that everyone agrees that it is a correct form of protest. An August 2020 poll found that 74% of Americans feel that flag desecration is not an appropriate way to protest, and 48% of Americans favor a constitutional amendment that would make it illegal to burn the American flag (37% opposing it, 15% not responding to the poll). [2]
The meaning held behind the formula "We The People" indicates per se that first and foremost - behind symbolic laws such as this one - we must take in huge consideration the American People's point of view on the matter, which has already been statistically expressed above, and in figure 3 (another poll with similar trends). [3]
Conclusion:
While from a legal standpoint it is completely legal under the current status of the US Constitution to publicly desecrate the American flag, according to the mutually given definition of "should", nothing forbids the US Congress from modifying the US Constitution in a manner that the First Amendment wouldn't necessarily hinder the course of an eventual US Constitution addition formally outlawing the desecration of the US flag. Furthermore, while the question itself being by its nature highly subjective and therefore object to public opinion, it is also mandatory to consider the American people's opinions behind the eventual ban on flag desecration -- and as it has been afore proved, the American people are highly in favor of outlawing such actions. Lastly, it is the American people's right & duty to preserve and honor the meanings for which the US symbols stand, including the US flag: liberty, democracy and equality for all. Burning the US flag is an indirect to the ideals for which the United States of America & its People stand, therefore being highly offensive and a form of protest that aims to nothing else but cause further dispair among the people of an already-turbulent society.
Sources:
Round 2
Con
#3
Thank you, Chernobyl, for your timely response.
Preamble:
I will split my response up into four parts: the first will criticize my opponent’s structure, the second will rebut my opponent’s arguments, and the third will extend my own arguments.
Part 1: A flawed structure from my opponent in violation of the rules merits the loss of a conduct point.
As duly stated in the description, the structure of the debate includes “R1: Constructive arguments: no direct rebuttals.” (Emphasis added) A constructive argument is one that supports a case, while a rebuttal is one that attacks an opponent’s case. My opponent has clearly violated this structure, as shown by at least two direct rebuttals against my contentions.
The purpose of this restrictive structure is to compensate for the contender’s inherent advantage: having the last argument in every debate, which the instigator cannot respond to. By not adhering to this structure, my opponent has not followed the fair spirit of this debate, which I believe merits the loss of a conduct point.
Part 2: My opponent’s constructive claims fail to adequately uphold his burden of proof.
First, my opponent has argued that that “it [the legal precedent of upholding flag desecration] certainly does not prohibit the US Congress from editing the Constitution in a way that it would exempt burning the US flag from the conditions of freedom of expression.”
My opponent’s point fails to address the main point of my first contention: namely that, no matter how you justify it legally, outlawing flag desecration is clearly unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, not passing unconstitutional laws would, per the definition, be the “proper, reasonable, or best thing to do.”
Furthermore, this debate also touches on public policy – it's not a debate over whether flag desecration is disrespectful, it’s a debate over whether flag desecration should be outlawed. My opponent must adequately show how and why his policy should be implemented – otherwise, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
My opponent's first argument addresses the “How” part, but in what I believe to be an inadequate way. Per Bond vs United States, a Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law, the court said, and I quote, “A conviction under [such an unconstitutional law] is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” [1]
As this decision shows, if any law or amendment outlawing flag desecration was passed, it would not only be ineffective, but likely struck down.
Unless my opponent can convincingly show that outlawing flag desecration would be allowed and lead to a real impact, I have negated my opponent’s first argument.
Second, my opponent has cited several polls showing that a plurality of American people support an amendment outlawing flag desecration. Ii have no objection to my opponent’s sources, but this argument is flawed in two ways.
Primarily, popular approval is not something to base public policy on. Indeed, my opponent’s argument could be called an ad populum fallacy – just because people approve of something doesn’t mean it’s correct or right. As one famous public official said, “100% of people would like to not pay taxes.” Regrettably, lawmakers have declined to implement this.
Just as importantly, the popular opinion against flag desecration is a reason to fight even harder to keep it legal. The First Amendment protects opinions, no matter how unpopular they are. As the American Civil Liberties Union incisively noted, “Experience shows that the way to fight political expression with which one disagrees is not to outlaw it, but to express disapproval.”
The flag of America represents our country – and our freedom. This includes the freedom to express disapproval, however distasteful it may be.
Unless my opponent can demonstrate that popular approval is a legitimate basis for an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, I have negated my opponent’s second argument.
Furthermore, giving in to the public and outlawing flag desecration would set a dangerous precedent, an argument I will extend in Part 3.
Third, my opponent has argued that flag desecration is “highly offensive and a form of protest that aims to nothing else but cause further dispair [sic!] among the people of an already-turbulent society.”
While it’s true the flag desecration is offensive to many, outlawing it would create equal outrage. To curtail one of our fundamental civil freedoms that we hold dear as a country, could only lead to more trouble.
Part 3: My opponent has not convincingly refuted my arguments, so I extend them. I also add a new argument that builds on my previous points.
I extend my arguments regarding protection of flag desecration under the 1st amendment, as well as how outlawing flag desecration violates the freedoms it represents.
Outlawing flag desecration would set a dangerous precedent: in effect, “If you don’t like this viewpoint, then ban it.” Under the guise of banning “offensive” or “divisive” speech, any unpopular opinion could be shut down.
Since when has freedom of speech depended on popular approval? As the famous saying goes, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
To make a rhetorical point, I’ll clarify my own position on flag desecration. I am a loyal citizen of the US, love my country, and I would never burn the flag. So why am I so fervently against outlawing flag desecration? It’s for the same reason why 74% think flag burning is a bad form of protest, but only 49% think it should be outlawed. Like that 25% difference, I understand how important freedom of expression is to our society. Freedom of expression should be a right, not a privilege, of a democratic society. It is a fundamental American value.
Conclusion:
In this response, I have done three things. First, I have validly criticized my opponent’s structure in violation of the rules. Second, I have refuted my opponent’s two arguments about how or why flag desecration should be outlawed. Third, I have extended my main argument to demonstrate why exactly allowing flag desecration is so important for freedom of speech.
I look forward to my opponent's response.
Sources:
As well as all other sources cited in the previous round.
Round 3
Round 4
Con
#7
Reminder that final round blitzkriegs are not allowed, per the rules. Extend all arguments, Vote CON.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
FF Pro.
Done
Can you remove my vote so that I can get the wording right in my analysis?
Oh shiznit... Good catch.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
I'm somewhat confused by your vote - did you mix up PRO and CON somewhere?
Bump, it's literally a full forfeit, free vote for yall's stats
Bump, FF by opp - pls vote
I experimented with adding some bold text for emphasis - I'm just going to claim that in the preview, it looked better than this black-and-white chequered mess.
IMO I think this debate falls under public policy, so if I make a convincing case that my opponent's plan is impractical, it is a valid argument. I will, of course, also argue why fundamentally it's wrong to ban flag desecration. Thanks for the feedback.
'should' is almost always a moral argument. A good argument will not focus on law or precedent but the most basic human VALUES and whether or not flag desecration follows those values. Don't cite freedom of speech, point to the arguments the Founding Fathers gave when they decided that it was important enough to make it the First Amendment.
Take your time!
I am a bit busy tonight and won't be able to respond until tmrw - apologies for the delay.