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

Sorry i couldn't get on, like i said before, i have a lot going on, and now it's just all piling up. sorry i couldn't forecast all of it. so... First i'll discuss my opponent's points, and then my own. I would like to point out that my opponent has presented no evidence to back up his side, even he has no arguments. He only argues against my points (and then about the manner of my points, not the content), and does not present any arguments of his own. As Pro, he has a responsibility to present reasons why voters should side with him, why the resolution is right. Now i know i was absent for the middle of the debate, but this is no reason why he could not present his own points. As he did not present any case, and as such we cannot side Pro. My opponent's arguments are basically all about how i debated, not what i debated, but i will move on to his arguments regardless... His first: I am sorry for that, i was going to add a card to my case, then didn't because of the 4 minute first speech limit, and forgot to take off the tag for that card. But what that card says is basically that By justifying CD you have to (or attempt to) justify violence, and violence is bad, yadayadayada. please do not ignore the rest of that point. "Onto your second point. Your second point is completely irrelavent to your first point, and must be treated as such. Again, the warrant for the card is not there. Again, it says could, not will. Your card is lacking the emphasis you want it to. Get another card if you want someone to be convinced otherwise. You also seem to forget that people right now disobey the government in violent ways anyway. The fact is, people will do what they want, regardless of what's going on. It would be better to allow Civil Disobedience. Why? It allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. We have had times in our own history where we've seen Civil disobedience go fine, until it was intervened upon. Only when it was intervened upon did violence show." - Kasemei I do not understand his whole first paragraph, i would ask him to clarify, but it would do me no good due to my schedule cramming in the previous rounds (again, i apologize). As far as i have been taught, my second point must not be completely tied in with the first. Obviously it has to be on topic but i do not catch what he is getting at. Then his second paragraph is the only instance in which he actually attacks my content, and even then my point defeats his attack. He says that people disobey the government violently anyways. So it would be better to allow CD. I do not follow that logic nor does it stand up to my point. He says it allows people to show how strongly they care about a topic. But it's impossible for that expression to have effect if breaking the law (violently) is already the norm. Then he seems to move on to an argument best met with my first point. He says CD often goes fine, until it is intervened with. then violence occurs. This is what i am trying to say in my first point. CD causes violence, whether it is the government being violent or the advocates. Even if the CD is non-violent, it leads to violence. Violence is an effect of CD. On my third point, he says this: "Now onto the last point. This card doesn't apply. Civil Disobedience is meant for people to voice their opinions, for their voices to be heard. The card makes no sense." I do not see how the card does not apply. I would gladly clarify in an email or comment, since this is the last round. And of course CD is meant to help voice opinions. What i am saying is that the method of CD is ineffective and often hurtful to the cause. If the campaign fails to reach the audience, it can INCREASE hostility to the cause instead of decreasing it. People see that the group is breaking the law, and thus the group is labeled not activists, but criminals, wackos, and as overbearing. People constantly say that how CD helps voice opinions is that it gets publicity. Unfortunately, we must look at the kind of attention this gets. Breaking the law to make a point all too often marginalizes the group. They are considered radicals, etc. Thus it is ineffective. In review, i would like to lay out how my opponent has failed in his attempt to affirm the resolution. 1. First and most important, no case. No reasons to affirm the resolution. This is inexcusable. Even with my absence in previous rounds, he could have presented a case, even just one reason why we must affirm. But instead, he does not, and thus we must side Con. 2. He attacks how i debate, mistakes in structure, etc. He fails to attack my content. 3. The one time he does attack my subject matter, it only affirms my arguments. So, if the voters choose to look past my absence, they will find that Con is the side that presents a case and refutations that a) exist and b) affirm my side. So here is a quick, one to three (maybe four?) sentence summary of my points: 1. Whether on purpose, or on accident, CD leads to violence on the part of either government or advocate. 2. CD fosters disrespect for the law. If we justify breaking the law because we disagree with it, then disobedience is the new norm. thus breaking the law does not stand out, because it is all around us. 3. The kind of attention CD gets hurts and does not help any cause. It only sets the nation against said cause and can marginalize the group. Thank you for listening and voting, and to Kasemei, for debating.