Instigator / Con
0
1480
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Topic
#4733

Should Confederate Flag and Statues be removed?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Description

Ever since the Civil War officially ended. Americans have been divided on whether the Confederacy should remain or be wiped from the pages of our history. Pro will present arguments in this debate that justify or prove that the Confederate memorabilia should be removed. Con will instead argue why it should remain. BOF is on Pro. But Con may present evidence if wanted or needed.

Round 1
Con
#1
Introduction:  I would like to thank Pro for accepting this debate. I do not intend to dispute the ethics of the Civil War. I want to discuss whether the people should remove the Confederate flag.

1st argument: I do not deny that the Confederate flag signifies oppression to many people. Many want to remove the flag because of this, but the fact that the flag sends a bad message is not enough to remove it. It has historical worth and needs to be kept. 
Ruining history helps no one. We need to learn from our past, not forget it.

2nd argument: How do we recognize a Nazi? by the uniforms and symbols. Suppose we destroyed the nazi material. What would we teach people to be alert in case another group like the nazis strike the world again? Nothing, and that is an issue. Those who remove history; leave it open for it to reprise itself. I would not want to live in a world where Nazism can rise again just because we don't know about them. Do you? What is to say the same cannot be applied to the Confederate Flag?

3rd argument:  When history can be whitewashed, it is no longer a world of knowledge we live in. We instead live in a world where others control our thoughts. The only reason one would want to stop you from learning about the Confederate Flag and its history is so that you will refrain from forming an opinion about the topic. It is vital for our freedom that the flag is never removed. If it ever is, we will enter an age of censorship and mind control. Make your own opinion on history. Do not let others shield you from it by removing it.

Conclusion: The Confederate Flag is a vital piece of American history. It allows us to understand intimidation so we never fall victim to it again. Such knowledge is lost without the flag and it's contributing influence to our country's history. It must not be removed because to do so would be to remove not only the knowledge it holds but also our freedom and identity as Americans.

Pro
#2
I start with this question to the opposing side.

If the Confederate flag is non existent, would that mean the past is as well?

Now there are things about your conclusion that I will use in showing justification that the flag , any flag or statue whatever existing now should be non existent and indeed replaced with what's called an universal flag.

In regards to the universal flag it is a concept I first was introduced to by Mr. Neely Fuller Jr. author of a textbook workbook for thought, speech and action for victims of racism/white supremacy. It is a subtitle to a book called The United Independent Compensatory Code System Concept in short can be referred to as simply "The Code Book".

To my understanding the universal flag has an universal symbol. We know, those of us that do, know about flags displaying symbols. Those symbols don't mean anything unless translated by a person. Otherwise typically it is just a piece of cloth dangling, flapping in the air with some sort of colors. 
The flags that exist as we know it may not relate to everyone everywhere but perhaps to a specific region. Most likely the only ones in that particular region or area knows what the flag, what the symbol stands for.

But the universal flag has an universal symbol. That symbol according to the concept is none other than a question mark. Questions are universal so how it would translate as a symbol or expression would be on that flag. Even a blank expression or blank flag can be an equivalent because it can raise the question, why is this flag blank?

All over the world it means the same. It has those that see it asking questions. I particularly when seeing a flag do not have any questions about it. Nothing about the colors , what everything means and as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't relate to me. So I have nothing to do with it, it doesn't identify with me.

This is another thing about my relationship to a flag that Mr. Fuller speaks on. I know in no way of how I relate to a flag. Maybe I'll ask a question. I may ask how. Then I again , I may not. If it's a foreign image that appears to be irrelevant, I may not acknowledge, never acknowledge and or never retain the existence of any particular flag. At least one that is outside of my environment.

But one that is lacking symbolization, one that is vague, unclear, one that is puzzling, I'll tend to inquire about. That's the universal flag. So when these questions arise, it provokes conversation. It causes the search for information in regards to the universal flag and or how it relates .

For instance, I stand for the pledge of allegiance to the American flag, why?

I don't know particularly why. I know that it symbolizes a country. But being I don't know more than that, I don't know why I would stand and recite a specific pledge. As Mr. Fuller puts it, being that I'm in this specific state of mind, I would give an alternate pledge to express that state of mind. The pledge goes as follows:

I do at all times relate to the flag in the same way as or that the flag relates to me.

Basically meaning as I understand it, whatever it means to me is whatever that is which could be absolutely nothing.

The universal flag can be hung up beside the American flag, Confederate flag, any flag. Any of those flags next to the universal flag start to become non existent to the mind. Although physically existing, they have no impact as if they don't. 

There shouldn't be no existence of anything that has no impact. There would be nothing existing to cause the impact.

Why? How is this possible that any other flag is removed from impact? When so many questions are raised such as to what the universal flag is , why is it next to the other flag, what do they represent together? Who put the flag there? Etc.

It sparks questions over the meaning of the flag and how it relates to anyone at anytime at any event anywhere.  

So a person can have a question of what does this flag mean to me today, what did it mean to me yesterday, what did it mean to my parents, their parents and theirs and to all the ancestors before?

What is happening is getting the information, knowledge and education from people,  not from a flag.

Without a flag , people can still exist. It is people from where we get our information , learn of history.

If these flags didn't physically exist, but the universal flag, it would have us to learn about many things including history as it has us seeking to ask questions, conversing, learning about the universe. Not just one country or place. The universal flag, not representing a country but the universe.

"The Confederate Flag is a vital piece of American history. It allows us to understand intimidation so we never fall victim to it again. Such knowledge is lost without the flag and it's contributing influence to our country's history. "

No flag is necessary to receive knowledge. Anything we want to know, particularly history or even what a flags means, the flag itself can tell you nothing. You'll have to ask a person, particularly the one whom has crafted and or put up the flag.

"It must not be removed because to do so would be to remove not only the knowledge it holds but also our freedom and identity as Americans."

The only way you can remove the knowledge is removing the person that holds or contains it. A piece of cloth holds no knowledge. A flag you can say is a reflection or an effect from a person's knowledge. Recall what I said about thought/speech and action.

We can learn and do learn from the speech that comes from the thoughts of individuals. Then we know why the actions are made.

What justifies removing the Confederate flag or making it non existent mentally or physically?

I still don't know what it's supposed to represent. It doesn't spark me to ask questions such as many other flags that are not provoking inquisition.

With absolutely no flags existing even including the universal one, we'd have history. We'd have those who can tell it.  Flags are a material form of expression. The things that happen was a cause of them being created by someone or some persons, not the other way around. We get our knowledge from the person's directly that were involved in the past events or from persons akin that can give a report, a testimony from persons involved. Just adequate research taken by those asking questions. 

That's what justifies it. I learn from the source directly or indirectly which is not the flag. The source may very well be the one who put up the flag. I don't talk to the flag. Don't need it, don't require it.

What would justify that Confederate flags should be removed?

When the flags are perhaps desecrated, withered, tattered , ripped and a person doesn't want a flag in that condition, that would justify removing it.

When the flags are in places of vandalism or at risk for possible theft and the owner wants to prevent this, it's justified in removing them from that environment.

When the flags are perhaps sparking controversy, confrontations, outbursts and riots, any constable or law official that seems to remove the flags to avoid escalation of social hostility, it would be justified.

When a flag is blocking the sun from hitting Ms . Tilda's garden, it be justified in removing the flag then. She worked on the garden and wants to keep it up .

I can go on and on about what justifies what should and not be based on an objective. 

So in a rebuttal to your side, flags are customary and are not a necessity and that would justify the  discarding of just like customizations to a car that are non necessities.







Round 2
Con
#3
Pro has asked me if the Confederate Flag no longer exists will the past not exist as well? The answer is yes. The past is only known by the evidence left behind for us to learn from it. If we never see the Confederate flag or know what it symbolizes. We will not know its past as well. 

Now there are things about your conclusion that I will use in showing justification that the flag , any flag or statue whatever existing now should be non existent and indeed replaced with what's called an universal flag.
Pro is calming that all flags need to be replaced with a Universal Flag. That has no relevance to the topic nor does that contradict the points I made. I ask the Pro to keep the discussion on the topic at hand.

With absolutely no flags existing even including the universal one, we'd have history. We'd have those who can tell it.  Flags are a material form of expression. The things that happen was a cause of them being created by someone or some persons, not the other way around. We get our knowledge from the person's directly that were involved in the past events or from persons akin that can give a report, a testimony from persons involved. Just adequate research taken by those asking questions. 
Pro claims that if no Flags existed we would have history. This makes no sense and is not how History works. Pro also claims that we do not get history from historical Artifacts like Flags but instead from personal accounts from people related to the past. It is true that we do get a large portion of our understanding of history from people. But to disregard material such as flags is a complete discard for history itself. No one who understands the importance of history agrees with Pro's suggestion.

Overall, Pro has not addressed the points I made. The only thing the Pro does is suggest that the Flag is not needed because they believe flags hold little historical value. The rest is an unrelated tangent about what the pro describes as a "Univeral Flag," Until the Pro can actually make a related argument that justifies the removal of the Confederate flag. Or counter the points I raised. I will not need to add more for a rebuttal nor counter argument. I have made my position on a solid foundations that relates to the subject at hand. The pro currently had not.

Vote Con.
Pro
#4
"Pro has asked me if the Confederate Flag no longer exists will the past not exist as well? The answer is yes. The past is only known by the evidence left behind for us to learn from it. If we never see the Confederate flag or know what it symbolizes. We will not know its past as well. "

All this is incorrect. I can know about history without a piece of cloth. History professors, buffs and scholars are people, not flags .

So I'll ask this question. If I ask a flag a question, will it give a vocal answer?

"I ask the Pro to keep the discussion on the topic at hand."

Just keep reading.

"Pro claims that if no Flags existed we would have history. This makes no sense and is not how History works. "

The history of yesterday exists to me. I don't need a physical piece of cloth or canvass in order for history to exist. 

Let's ask another question since you're questioning how history works, let's see how it works for you to learn of it. If a flag is before you, how else would you know what it symbolizes or the history surrounding it without a person telling you first?

Do you think if a flag wasn't before you, that person would not still have the information to pass down to you?


"It is true that we do get a large portion of our understanding of history from people. But to disregard material such as flags is a complete discard for history itself. No one who understands the importance of history agrees with Pro's suggestion."

You just conceded right here that what we understand of history comes from people. You're being indirect with the "large portion". Everything that we understand of what we know comes from people that know first. You wouldn't even know what a flag, article or artifact is without a person giving you the information first. The flags tells us nothing. We know flags don't talk. It's s the person that tells us what a flag even means. What it means to anything. You made the statement that the flag holds knowledge . 

Flags don't hold knowledge. The person with a mind holds knowledge. 

"Overall, Pro has not addressed the points I made. The only thing the Pro does is suggest that the Flag is not needed because they believe flags hold little historical value."

No this is a poor assessment of my position in what I said.

Let me summarize it here and you can go by it verbatim. Don't rephrase it, don't twist it up or misrepresent it.

My rebuttal to your position that a flag holds knowledge you can call a claim but a claim to fact. Unless you can demonstrate that a flag somewhere in its configuration stores information or knowledge, you stand refutated. A flag is constituted of multiple fibers or threads stitched together. You won't find any part of that material that stores information from awareness and experience.
The only thread like connections that can make this possible are the ones that continuously receive electrical impulses rewiring and reconnecting.
It contains energy all on its own of its own.

A flag can be hot or cold depending on what you do with it. That's the only remote reference of energy in it that could be measured if you want to make an extreme example . It can be tattered, ripped, burned. Doesn't mean you've done a thing to history. Why? History has happened. Events have happened. You can't change that . Just think tampering with a flag could actually manipulate history.

I see you had no refutation for all my other points. I do accept your conceding on that.

You said "Such knowledge is lost without the flag and it's contributing influence to our country's history. It must not be removed because to do so would be to remove not only the knowledge it holds".

Saying knowledge is lost and a person is still here with the knowledge is false. If the person is gone with the knowledge, the knowledge is gone or it's lost. Let's get that straight.

I don't believe you believed what you said. I'm giving you benefit that you made a poor choice of words.

"The rest is an unrelated tangent about what the pro describes as a "Univeral Flag," Until the Pro can actually make a related argument that justifies the removal of the Confederate flag. Or counter the points I raised. I will not need to add more for a rebuttal nor counter argument. I have made my position on a solid foundations that relates to the subject at hand. The pro currently had not."

No the point of the universal flag is unconventional so it's understandable that you have no rebuttal for it. That was too deep, too in depth.

So you can't prove a flag is necessary for me knowing history to exist. You need a person that knows history and or be able to tell it to me. 

From what you're arguing is out of order.

The correct order is the person with the knowledge in the event that makes history including making the flag, not the other way around.

Get the sources straight.









Round 3
Con
#5
You just conceded right here that what we understand of history comes from people. You're being indirect with the "large portion". Everything that we understand of what we know comes from people that know first. You wouldn't even know what a flag, article or artifact is without a person giving you the information first. The flags tells us nothing. We know flags don't talk. It's s the person that tells us what a flag even means. What it means to anything. You made the statement that the flag holds knowledge . 
Pro has made a false statement. In order for me to concede a point I would have to agree. However, I clearly stated that disregarding historic relicts like flags is to disregard history itself. Which is the opposite of what Pro is arguing. The Pro's argument is that Flags tell us nothing. The Pro also contradicts themself. They say that without a person giving us information we would know nothing of a flag. What Pro fails to realize is that without a Flag's existence, a person could not teach us about it. It's the same as arguing that since we don't talk to paper, we don't need it as we have people to tell us things instead.  The argument makes no sense.

Flags don't hold knowledge. The person with a mind holds knowledge. 
People with no material only have hearsay. Without a physical showing of a confederate Flag, anything that someone says can be a lie. Unless Pro believes that everything you are in told in life is true. They cannot argue that you don't need physical evidence to believe what someone says.

My rebuttal to your position that a flag holds knowledge you can call a claim but a claim to fact. Unless you can demonstrate that a flag somewhere in its configuration stores information or knowledge, you stand refutated. A flag is constituted of multiple fibers or threads stitched together. You won't find any part of that material that stores information from awareness and experience.
The only thread like connections that can make this possible are the ones that continuously receive electrical impulses rewiring and reconnecting.It contains energy all on its own of its own.
The problem, however, is that the point of the debate was whether the Flag should be removed. Not whether it contained knowledge. MY points in Round one was specifically based on said justifications. Pro did not quote or address a single one of them for a rebuttal to be counted. Pro instead choose to make a separate argument all together. Rather than justifying why the flag should be removed. They instead made the argument or replacing it with a Univeral Flag and are now claiming (based on illogical reasoning) that the flag holds no knowledge. None of this address the debate itself nor the points I originally made. I have therefore not been rebuttaled despite what Pro might claim.

A flag can be hot or cold depending on what you do with it. That's the only remote reference of energy in it that could be measured if you want to make an extreme example . It can be tattered, ripped, burned. Doesn't mean you've done a thing to history. Why? History has happened. Events have happened. You can't change that . Just think tampering with a flag could actually manip
A flag being hot or cold "depending on what you do with it." Has nothing to do with the debate. The arguments that Pro is making are not only not on point. But they are also borderline ridicules. A flag containing or lacking energy is irrelevant.

I see you had no refutation for all my other points. I do accept your conceding on that.
Another false statement made by Pro. I did not concede anything. I also did offer refutation. I argued against Pros claim that flags hold no historic value and dismissed the whole remainder of the argument as an unrelated tangent. So, claiming that I offered no refusals is a lie and demonstrates the Pro is not offering Mutual respect in this debate.

No the point of the universal flag is unconventional so it's understandable that you have no rebuttal for it. That was too deep, too in depth.
No Pro. Calming something is irrelevant and unrelated to a debate is a rebuttal. I suggest you look up what a rebuttal is or read my words more carefully. 

Overall, The Pro has continued to not stay consistent with the debate I created, their arguments are based on illogical reasoning with no evidence, and They have falsely claimed repeatedly that I did not refute what they said despite my arguments saying otherwise. I ask that Pro actually read the rules of the debate since they seem to not understand what the argument is about or their job as Pro.

Vote Con.


Pro
#6
"The Pro's argument is that Flags tell us nothing. The Pro also contradicts themself. They say that without a person giving us information we would know nothing of a flag. What Pro fails to realize is that without a Flag's existence, a person could not teach us about it. It's the same as arguing that since we don't talk to paper, we don't need it as we have people to tell us things instead.  The argument makes no sense."

Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. A flag does not have a voice. If I ask a flag "What does this symbol threaded of stitches mean?", what sound is it going to make? Perhaps just one of it flapping in the wind.

I ask to get the information from a person. A person has a voice and is a witness to what happened in the past or akin to it. The person would still be that without a flag so history is intact as long their memory is. If I have a flag and no person, the flag is useless in that sense as I wouldn't have a person to explain what the flag even means 

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally misconstruing this point to avoid the fallacy in your position.

I mean we have history textbooks in school to learn about history written by people. History books are written information put forth by people. 

Whether written or vocal, to learn of history it takes some form of language, speech in communication particularly talking about what a flag is supposed to represent.

So this would kill that " we don't need paper" analogy you made. If we don't have it told vocally, we have it written in the pages  made out of paper in a book. I just made this point. 

"People with no material only have hearsay."

So if I KNOW of hearsay, is that called knowledge of the hearsay? You can call it whatever you want . You should know that I can't KNOW anything about a flag until a person explains it to me or explains it in a book of paper pages or single page , whatever. I can't know everything there is to know without a person that knows to convey it. I can't KNOW anything about it until a person explains what they KNOW of what they HEARD somebody SAYS called hearsay, a report, a testimony, an account, a witness account, whatever you want to call it. Getting finicky over these terms won't help you any to validation.

The source to information of that flag is through what can communicate the information of any language I or anybody receives communications through period.

"Without a physical showing of a confederate Flag, anything that someone says can be a lie. "

So what do you expect a piece a cloth to do?

You have to find a person that tells the truth if that's what you want. Unless you're talking about something you can see for yourself. That would be common sense. If you can see a flag has 7 stripes and a person told you it has four well duh. Of course that's common sense. Somebody still taught about numbers and arithmetic so indirectly someone is helping you there. But what do those stripes mean ?

Well , flag , I'm waiting. I have to ask a person and I may start with the person who put up the flag.

We got to get logical people. Not emotionally attached over material things but logical.

"Unless Pro believes that everything you are in told in life is true. They cannot argue that you don't need physical evidence to believe what someone says."

I'm not talking about evidence. I'm talking about a person or some sort of communication from a person to explain what a flag means. See flags are social inventions so the source is a social affiliation.

You wouldn't know to call the Confederate flag what it is without somebody telling you. Oh it's WRITTEN on the flag. Right it was WRITTEN by somebody to tell you that. Gotta think beyond the surface here .

I'm really looking to believe you're not seeing where I'm coming from all intellectual honesty.

"Not whether it contained knowledge. MY points in Round one was specifically based on said justifications."

Yet you make the statement that it holds knowledge hence basing your arguments upon that building a faulty position. So I have to rebut what you stated. This is double talk to say what a debate is not about so therefore I shouldn't be arguing certain things that you already put forth for me to argue. This is just another deflection from your erroneous point. 

"Pro did not quote or address a single one of them for a rebuttal to be counted."

This is not true. I've been quoting you round after round. This is again a deflection.

"Pro instead choose to make a separate argument all together. "

This is not true. I've been rebutting what I quote from you round after round. This is again a deflection.

"Rather than justifying why the flag should be removed. "

I gave several examples. I'll repost them and we're not going to pretend like we don't see them.

"What would justify that Confederate flags should be removed?

When the flags are perhaps desecrated, withered, tattered , ripped and a person doesn't want a flag in that condition, that would justify removing it.

When the flags are in places of vandalism or at risk for possible theft and the owner wants to prevent this, it's justified in removing them from that environment.

When the flags are perhaps sparking controversy, confrontations, outbursts and riots, any constable or law official that seems to remove the flags to avoid escalation of social hostility, it would be justified.

When a flag is blocking the sun from hitting Ms . Tilda's garden, it be justified in removing the flag then. She worked on the garden and wants to keep it up .

I can go on and on about what justifies what should and not be based on an objective. 

So in a rebuttal to your side, flags are customary and are not a necessity and that would justify the discarding of just like customizations to a car that are non necessities."

You can pretend as if you didn't read this but for those who are honest, continue to embrace an open mind.

"They instead made the argument or replacing it with a Univeral Flag and are now claiming (based on illogical reasoning) that the flag holds no knowledge."

Universal flag is too deep of an argument so I'll leave it simply. I didn't think it was that deep. 

Simple terms: "So in a rebuttal to your side, flags are customary and are not a necessity and that would justify the discarding of just like customizations to a car that are non necessities."

Maybe"holding knowledge " means something different to you. Knowledge is something that is located within the human brain so how does a piece of cloth have this?

Are we speaking the same language or what?

"None of this address the debate itself nor the points I originally made. I have therefore not been rebuttaled despite what Pro might claim."

You can accept this truth or not. Let's say it again :

"So in a rebuttal to your side, flags are customary and are not a necessity and that would justify the discarding of just like customizations to a car that are non necessities."

I got no response to that because that is irrefutable. If it was , the opportunity would have been taken to demonstrate. I make these points and it's common that many of you deflect and deflect and dismiss.

"A flag being hot or cold "depending on what you do with it." Has nothing to do with the debate. The arguments that Pro is making are not only not on point. But they are also borderline ridicules. A flag containing or lacking energy is irrelevant."

Another point I made that went over your head. Anytime you respond like this, you totally miss the point. It may click one day.

"I argued against Pros claim that flags hold no historic value and dismissed the whole remainder of the argument as an unrelated tangent."

I made no such claim except ones to facts. You don't realize when you concede that's all. Also you don't have to take it as disrespect or personally. Let it roll off your back baby.

"No Pro. Calming something is irrelevant and unrelated to a debate is a rebuttal. I suggest you look up what a rebuttal is or read my words more carefully. "

Rebuttal is actually disproving something. Saying something is irrelevant is just dismissing it. You're mixing up dismissing and refutation. Dismissing alone is not disproving or proving against. Now justified dismissal is another thing which you haven't demonstrated. You actually have to demonstrate it's justified to dismiss a point. But the thing is, you don't even question my points. If you'd question my points, you may find out how they're relevant. But you appear to be too closed minded to ask questions to take a chance on possibly being refuted. 

I see right through you.

"Overall, The Pro has continued to not stay consistent with the debate I created, their arguments are based on illogical reasoning with no evidence, and They have falsely claimed repeatedly that I did not refute what they said despite my arguments saying otherwise. I ask that Pro actually read the rules of the debate since they seem to not understand what the argument is about or their job as Pro."

Look bottom line, regardless of you avoiding to question my points, simply put :

"So in a rebuttal to your side, flags are customary and are not a necessity and that would justify the discarding of just like customizations to a car that are non necessities."



"Vote Con" being translated vote falsehood.







Round 4
Con
#7

Maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. A flag does not have a voice. If I ask a flag "What does this symbol threaded of stitches mean?", what sound is it going to make? Perhaps just one of it flapping in the wind.
How does a flag not having a voice have to do with anything? Thats not the point of the debate.

 ask to get the information from a person. A person has a voice and is a witness to what happened in the past or akin to it. The person would still be that without a flag so history is intact as long their memory is. If I have a flag and no person, the flag is useless in that sense as I wouldn't have a person to explain what the flag even means 
A person who is qualified to talk about history will show evidence to back up what they are saying. When asked what uniforms and flags that Confederacy used during the war. Anyone can claim they wore gray, and the Flag was red with a blue cross and stars with said blue cross. But without physical evidence. You do not know what they claim is true. Therefore, a person's memory is not as important as seeing it for yourself.

 So if I KNOW of hearsay, is that called knowledge of the hearsay? You can call it whatever you want . You should know that I can't KNOW anything about a flag until a person explains it to me or explains it in a book of paper pages or single page , whatever. I can't know everything there is to know without a person that knows to convey it. I can't KNOW anything about it until a person explains what they KNOW of what they HEARD somebody SAYS called hearsay, a report, a testimony, an account, a witness account, whatever you want to call it. Getting finicky over these terms won't help you any to validation.
Pro does not seem to understand what hearsay means. "Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate" hearsay definition - Search (bing.com) A report, testimony, and accounts of an event are not the same thing. The rest of Pro's argument is unrelated to the debate and So I will conclude my argument.

Conclusion:  I have demonstrated that the Confederate flag should not be removed for the following reasons.
  • The Confederate flag has historic value and should be kept even if it offends certain people.
  • White washing history serves only to allow the same mistake to happen in the future.
  • we cannot have opinions about bad ideologies if we do not learn them.
  • Pro has not stayed on topic with the debate since they argue about the flag not being able to answer questions to mean we do not need it which makes no sense at all. 
  • Pro is arguing that we can have history by people simply telling us about it. This is flawed since it means just taking peoples word at face value for no reason.
Vote Con.

Pro
#8
"How does a flag not having a voice have to do with anything? Thats not the point of the debate."

I cannot learn about a flag's history without a person telling me it. This should not be complicated but it seems like I've made this type of statement over and over and over. 

"Thats not the point of the debate." The point of any debate is to demonstrate the opposing cases. In yours you said a flag "holds knowledge". I know a person holds knowledge and they reveal it by speaking or VOICING it to me. A flag can't do that. We should know this. I shouldn't have to continue to reiterate this. A flag can't speak or voice anything vocally. A person does for it. 

Now if a person says that color on that flag "speaks" to me, it's figurative language.

This topic was a good topic to get into because apparently you didn't know that teleologically, a flag is just a reflection of a person or persons that crafted it. It doesn't hold knowledge. The information of  the flag's history doesn't exist if you don't have any informed person knowledgeable of the flag.

It's like you didn't realize without a person, a flag is just a piece of cloth or whatever it's made from, a t-shirt, a rag, whatever. The information of history particularly to flags wouldn't exist without people.

Flags are a reflection of what has happened with people, references what they want to symbolize, memorialize or tribute. These are social effects, so its source , source of information is the society which are made up of persons.

The correct order, persons make history, elect to make flags AS A CUSTOM to symbolize history. 

"A person who is qualified to talk about history will show evidence to back up what they are saying."

So what? You agree with me just by this statement that a person"talks" to you explaining what the evidence is. The person has to explain and tell you it's evidence in the first place. Otherwise, I'd say "what am I looking at here, somebody tell me."

Indirectly you agree but fighting to put up this front.

"When asked what uniforms and flags that Confederacy used during the war. Anyone can claim they wore gray, and the Flag was red with a blue cross and stars with said blue cross. But without physical evidence. You do not know what they claim is true. Therefore, a person's memory is not as important as seeing it for yourself."

I addressed this so , that was as good as done.

"Pro does not seem to understand what hearsay means. "Information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate" hearsay definition - Search (bing.com) A report, testimony, and accounts of an event are not the same thing."

So if I KNOW the information I received from another person, it's still knowledge. If I KNOW the lie you told, I still have knowledge of that lie. See you can move to all these different semantics as a red herring, you can argue about evidence, what's true and false , you agreed with the fact that a person explains all of this anyway.

Now you threw in the word "qualified" and providing evidence just trying to cloud the main point, but in essence basically it's still the person that gives the explanation.

You know this is true. So because of that you throw the "but this", "but that" to try to still make a valid point that doesn't make a difference. The epicenter is the person, person, person. The person who put up the flag , made the flag can tell me about it. How else am I suppose to know what it means or stands for ?

I've made this point several times . No rebuttal for it because it's true. So you just make a statement like you did below as a copout excuse.

"The rest of Pro's argument is unrelated to the debate and So I will conclude my argument."

You made a point about memory and hearsay. I specifically indicated that you can talk to the person who made or put up the flag. If you think somebody is making up a story, go to a history book. Much more information can fit into a big book of words than on a flag depending on how large the flag is.

No rebuttal to that about textbooks, history professors, etc ., schools, etc. So many points dropped because you have nooooo rebuttal to them whatsoever.

A person may not be telling the truth so therefore it's invalid to go to a person, what?

So what then? Do you just ask your questions to the Confederate flag?

You have to find another person duh. Oh or as you say "qualified ". Whatever. Still a person. 

You made quite a bit of statements in that opening round but I've invalidated you over and over again on that "knowledge it holds" statement.

We say in the debate community elsewhere, "I killed you on that ". I killed you over and over and over. We say "that's a bodybag". I body bagged you on so many points. Body bagged and tombstoned.

You didn't even realize your agreement. You conceded as far as I see.