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

To set a roadmap for this for this round, I will first attack the PRO's points and defend my case through my rebuttals. Pro 1) "Democracy is a system of government in which majority will can at times adversely and even systematically limit the rights of minorities. Voting rights or abilities to be part of the system of control is within this realm" In this point, my opponent chooses to use examples from the United States. While I agree that this should not be purely a hypothetical debate, the examples that my opponent uses to support his first contention directly contradict the principles of democracy and cannot be looked to. For example, in the case of the civil rights movement, civil disobedience was indeed a powerful tool in the fight for justice, however, these people did not have the right to vote. As I have clearly defined in my first contention a democracy is a "form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation. ( Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. )" "exercised by the WHOLE BODY of FREE citizens" is the key statement in my definition. Because all of my opponents examples involve a group of people who didn't have the right to vote and for their voice to be heard, this point cannot be looked to. Now to clarify, I will accept arguments from the United States, and from other real world democracies, but because these particular examples completely contradict the definition of democracy; they cannot be looked to. PRO 2) "On a practical level our system often means that injustice perpetuates unless dramatic attention is brought to issues. " My opponent tries to argue that because we (the United States) elect leaders and representatives, that we have little control over the laws that are passed. There are two problems with this argument. 1. ) This is the definition of republic according to dictionary. com "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. " The system of electing representatives, like my opponent talks about is part of the republic side of the United States democratic-republic, since the resolution only mentions democracy, this point falls. 2. ) Since we all have the right to vote at the grass-roots level, we consequentially hold all the power within our system. Also, legislatures being bought out and being controlled by interests that don't coincide with the views of the majority of our country is not an inherent impact of democracy, but inherent of society itself. PRO 3) "Civil Disobedience is philosophically just and works only when used for just causes" (cross apply my first point) In a democracy, everyone has a voice, and for a democracy to exist there must be a social contract. Many of the most famous philosophers in our history (locke, Rusoe, Aristotle) have accepted and taught this philosophy. "The idea of the ‘social contract' teaches that by living under a state we accept the benefits it brings us and by accepting these benefits we consent to its laws. If individuals placed their own values…over the collective laws of the state, the state would dissolve and none of its benefits would be available to any of us. " (Mott, Richard, June 6, 2006, "Civil Disobedience," International Debate Education Association. Carver pg. 33. ) While my opponent argues that civil disobedience could never erode our democracy in the United State, any degree of Civil Disobedience is inappropriate when there are other legal alternatives that haven't been exhausted. As Christopher Gray, author of "Civil Disobedience: Philosophy of Law", puts it. "Legal channels can never be ‘exhausted' Activists can always write another letter to their congressional delegation or to newspapers; they can always wait for another election and cast another vote. " (Cross apply my third and fourth point) My opponent argues that because people are willing to accept the consequences of breaking the law, they are justified in their actions. Not only does this completely contradict the concept of the social contract, but think about the negative impact of this. Since nobody can determine what is moral or immoral, civil disobedience being deemed "appropriate" would justify anyone with any cause to break the law in the fight for their cause. Just because someone is willing to accept the consequences for murdering someone, does not mean that they are justified in doing so, even if it is in a fight for what they believe is morally just. (I know that civil disobedience is non-violent, this is just a simple analogy that could be applied to any civil disobedience situation) "Thus, unlike what con suggests we are unlikely to have massive Disobedience movements formed over truly trivial causes…" This statement is un-topical, and generalized. We are not arguing how often, or when civil disobedience will occur, we are arguing whether or not is "appropriate in the fight for justice", which I have proven it is not. CON 2 (see pro's rebuttal) "1) Legislation ( Summary of points 3 and 4 on cons list)" Just like in my arguments against the pro's first point, under my definition of democracy, for a democracy to exist, all citizens must have the right to vote. When they do not, it is no longer a democracy. "2) Litigation" My opponent makes it sound as though the law must be broken for the overturning of a law to occur. This is simply not true. If it were then there would be no way for proposition 8 to exist. Courts overturn laws all the time. Civil Disobedience creates no change by itself; it always has to go through our legal system. So why not go straight to court, where the actual change is made. "3) Get out on the streets" While I can certainly see the incentive for Germany to suppress neo-nazi ideas from reaching the public, it is very un-democractic of Germany to restrict the voice of its citizens. This is a poor example because, once again, when the voice of the people is restricted, and the principles of democracy are violated. "4) Media" My opponent sets a double standard for his argument. He says that the media has the power to suppress coverage of large legal protests and stories, but they do not have the power to suppress coverage of acts of civil disobedience. This is false for several reasons: 1. ) Large legal protests are as likely, if not more likely, to gain media coverage than acts of civil disobedience. My opponent argues that it is easier for the media to brush legal acts under the rug, and though I believe Rosa Parks to be one of the most influential women in the civil rights movement, her story wasn't the only one to gain coverage. The bus boycott, which was completely legal, is what created the controversy that later led to court trials and change, Martin Luther Kings "I have a dream" speech, was completely legal, and sparked much of the change that our country needed. Plus it would have been much easier for blacks to gain equality if they had a voice, and since they didn't we can't look to this example, because this debate is specific to democracy. My opponent gives no reason or example that proves that it is easier for the media to suppress legal acts such as protests or speeches, than it is to suppress acts of social disobedience. 2. ) Being neglected by the media is more likely due to an insignificant number of citizens in favor of your cause, rather than the media trying to keep you out of the national spotlight. Because the media is made up of a group of different parties and opinions, it is a generalization to assume that the media is completely biased for one side of the issues.