Civil Disobedience should not be used as a form of political change

It seems I have already won this debate for my opponent is inconsistent with his objective. First he describes civil disobedience as peaceful and non violent, then he uses examples such as the American revolution and black civil rights as example. Then he goes to say that he is not advocating civil rights, yet the debate objective the he chose is should civil rights be used as a form of political change. Then he dismisses his example involving India and Ghandi and substitutes it for the U.S. alone. "...I would like to state I never meant to encourage civil disobedience, I simply stated it was needed in order for the United States to be what it is today." And your theory that the United States would have never been a country if there was no civil disobedience is highly debatable, as there are many other scenarios that could have taken place. But such a subject is not fit for this debate--I just wish for you to know that such a claim is not entirely credible. "...but sometimes in order to get rid of laws that are immoral or unjust and to achieve certain freedoms civil disobedience is the only tool in the box so to say." The above claim double-sided. Take my society A vs society B example into consideration. What is unjust to A is justifiable to B. With that said, if both sides (A and B) decide to use civil disobedience to get what they want, violence will be the end result. And whatever new law emerges will be based upon the acts of violence that was shown instead of the acts of logic and rationale, as it should be. "90% of the people would never want murder to be legal, it is just illogical to put that scenario into place." Oh, really? What about in Islamist nations, where the majority calls for the death of non-Muslims or secular establishments? Surely by your logic those deaths are justified, right? Once again, and I stress what I am about to say, the U.S. is not Democracy, it is a Republic. There are no pure democracies that currently exist. It is immoral to enforce the rules of the masses against the minority. In substitute, a compromise must be established. But since civil disobedience is action instead of logic, such compromises won't be established by the majority until the majority feels it is losing by individual numbers and political power."There are indeed many alternatives to civil disobedience, yet there are not many cases in which any of these have helped out a country to as big an extent as civil disobedience has to India with Gandhi or the United States."Such a claim is void, as there is no way to truly know whether or not things could have been better or worse if another method of political activity was used. Nor have those alternative methods of negotiation been widely explored. Again, you and I both agree that sometimes civil disobedience is necessary, but I have proved that, because of its negative history, it should not be utilitarianly used or encouraged, especially over diplomacy. "I am not saying it is something that should be encouraged, but if a majority of people in the country have an issue that is not being answered by the government in which they elected and nothing else can be done, what other choice do they have?"Perhaps if "Civil disobedience should be used for an issue that is not being answered." was your debate topic, then perhaps you may have a point. But speaking generally, as you have admitted yourself, the bad outweighs the good in both individual incidences and human rights. With that said, unless a group of people know for a fact that their disobedience will end with little to no blood being shed, then it should not be considered. The Salt March of India was a rare case in a rare setting against a liberal government. Ghandi's method of peace only worked because the government (The British) did not truly want total order, for if they did, then, well... refer to my Syrian example.