In a democracy: Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

OK, lets have a grammar debate. Your definition is actually of the word be, which may be defined as you describe. However, IS exists as the 3rd person, singular, PRESENT TENSE, form of the word be, which you defined. (http://dictionary.reference.com...). This limits the debate to the present as you used a PRESENT TENSE verb to describe CD. Sure, CD worked miracles. IRRELEVANT. In today's world, which I just proved we are debating in. No one suffers from the injustices you describe. Everyone has the right to voice his/her own opinion. Voting for a person with your morals doesn't mean your morals will be shown in the law, I agree. But, this isn't what I argue. Your morality plays a small part in the whole of societal morality. Part of functioning amongst several different moralities is the necessity for compromise. Democracy functions on the premise of majority. If you aren't in the majority, your morality doesn't fit into society's on that issue. To deny this is to deny the democracy you defend. So, we've attempted to debate this shape-shifting chameleon of a 'resolution' through the rounds here. "Resolved: In a democracy, Civil Disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice." How do you get that CD is an alternative when other means fail and all of your other claims about the resolution from that. The fact is CD is outdated and no longer appropriate. You can't interpret your own resolution in a different light every round. I debated the fact that is no longer appropriate. You didn't answer that. Instead, you claim that it should be used when nothing else works. I have argued voting works, you don't respond. Therefore, voting works and CD isn't appropriate, which is the literal interpretation of the 'resolution'. Your terrorism example is irrelevant as it isn't about correcting unjust laws, simply violating the law to point out a weakness. Are you arguing that bringing materials like that on to the plane should be legal? Because, then it would be an act of CD. "what i meant was that i don't believe CD should be used first, because the resolution is only about weather it should be an option" How the hell did you pull that out of the resolution. Again, I have argued the literal translation, not one convenient to my argument. The fact is, now that everyone has the right to vote, all of our moralities can be heard. As a democratic society, we must function in a constant state of compromise. Saying that a law is immoral is to deny that collective democratic opinion and place your morality above those of your fellow citizens. CD is no longer appropriate because we can vote and voting reflects our collective morality, which holds more weight than the morality of a single person. CD shouldn't be an option because it is no longer necessary. Disregard for the law shouldn't be a viable option in a world where it isn't necessary. The grammar debate at the top and common sense proves that we are debating about the present and the fact that CD corrected injustices in the past is irrelevant. Even if we granted those works, it would simply prove that CD has served its purpose and is no longer necessary, since everyone can vote.