In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice

In this resolution, the meaning of ‘civil disobedience' will be extremely important so I will briefly define it. Civil disobedience is "the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. Often the law being broken is the one being protested" according to Webster's dictionary. The word ‘Democracy' is another trouble spot. In a pure democracy, the people vote on everything, in the world today and in the foreseeable future, this type of government does not, and will not, exist. In this debate, my partner and I see no reason to debate on something that has no relevance in the world so we will be using the many countries that show basic signs of democracy. My partner and I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution today for three main reasons: 1.Civil disobedience has been very effective in the past 2.A democracy is supposed to be a government for the people and this is a very effective way to get the governments attention on things the citizens care about 3.and the laws that are being broken are unjust My first contention today is that in the past civil disobedience has been very successful in democracies. There are the obvious examples of the many sit-ins and other acts of civil disobedience in our very own country, which is a democracy, during the civil rights movements. First for the sit-ins: sit-ins, according to the American Heritage Dictionary are defined as when "protesters seat themselves and remain seated until they are evicted, usually by force, or until their requests have been met." This relates to the definition of civil disobedience because these protesters disobey the law that requires them to relocate unless they have a permit or in some cases the law that disobeys them from being there in the first place without using violence. These sit-ins can be a very effective way of getting the unjust law that they are protesting noticed without having to wait until the next election and further put off their justice. Some other examples of civil disobedience that have been effective in the past are Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up on a bus in 1955 which helped unite the nation against racism, also the Boston Tea Party is an example of civil disobedience and that united the colonies to fight for their freedom against England. My second contention stated that a democracy is a government created for the people and this is the only way that the citizens concerns will be answered in a timely fashion. Going back to my and my partner's definition of a democracy the people do not vote directly on important matters, such as a law that is unjust towards the people, we vote on the people that may change and make these laws. This can become problematic because sometimes the unjust laws go unnoticed by some lawmakers who may not be affected by them. Civil disobedience is one way to alert these lawmakers that there is a problem with these laws, which affects many people. My third, and final, contention is that often the laws that are being protested are also the ones being broken, and if they are being protested they must be unjust, and it is a right of people in a democracy to not obey unjust laws and try to fix them, it is, by substitution, a right of people in a democracy to use civil disobedience to make a law just. Going back through those steps, by the definition of civil disobedience most of the time "the law being broken is the one being protested" as I have already stated. For the second step, the law that is being protested is obviously unjust; otherwise, it would not be protested. The final step is the most difficult, John Locke, a British philosopher, was the one to have deduced this. Then when you combine these ideas, it is evident that civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. To conclude, I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution today for these three reasons 1.Civil disobedience has been very effective in the past 2.A democracy is supposed to be a government for the people and this is a very effective way to get the governments attention on matters the citizens care about 3.and finally the laws that are being broken are unjust therefore they shouldn't be followed.