Resolved: In a democracy, Civil Disobedience is morally justified.

I have queried my opponent relative to narrowing his argument to a debatable subject and he has responded that he is prepared to argue that "[He is] debating the aff stating that CD is morally justified. Law can be in the argument pro/neg, but it is about morality, hence my VP, etc. .. that ALL scts are morally justified. " Thus I will begin by defining "Morality" as it pertains to "morally justified. " Simply stated, morality is the distinguishing feature between right and wrong. Although it is easy to agree to this, it is impossible for everyone to agree at all times, just what is right and what is wrong. Civil disobedience, in my opponent's view is expressed as a "non-violent act" that hinges on the "safety of the people. " However, I dispute this rendering as not only naive but inherently less effective as a violent confrontation or demonstration. In fact, most of the more recent acts of civil disobedience have resulted in violence, some times in the act of CD itself but many times more often in the reaction of those opposed to the actions of the disobedients(? ) and/or those charged with the duty of preserving the peace and safety they view as threatened by the demonstration. Thus, the very purpose of civil disobedience is to provoke a militant response which, in itself, puts at risk the safety of the demonstrators as well as the public at large. It is this response that thrusts the issue into the public eye. I think I should also point out that my opponent has not defined violence, although I believe he is referring to direct physical contact between humans or animals (such as police dogs, etc. ). But I propose there are other types of violence that do not fall under that definition that often times occur during periods of civil disobedience, namely, damage to property and thetas of violence, such as the indiscriminate destruction of personal and public property (burning buildings, overturning vehicles and setting fires as barricades among others) that invites retaliation and counter violence. I also find it difficult to believe it to be morally against violence and at the same time beg for violence to illustrate a moral viewpoint. My opponent states in his second contention, "that civil disobedience is a strong catalyst for change" but by saying this, does not delineate between morally "right" and "wrong" change. A prime example of this is the Prohibitionist issue which dominated a great deal of public thinking in the first half of the last century. One could equate "speakeasies" and "bootleggers" as civil disobienents rather than law-breakers but their actions produced a great deal of violence as well as the dominance of a number of organized crime syndicates that fostered an era of lawlessness and violence that still pervades our nation today. It was this "civil disobedience" that ultimately prompted the repeal of prohibition. Even today there are vast numbers of citizens who believe the consumption of alcoholic beverages to be immoral, but confine their proselytizing less confrontational means. Finally, as you assert, the definition of civil disobedience means that the protesting party or parties must violate a law. This, then, precludes picketing, marches, inflammatory speeches, rallies, etc. since they are all protected under the constitution. It is when they BECOME violent that they become CD's. This then negates the pro argument. I eagerly await your response.