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

First off let me say this has been a great debate for me, i have learned a lot about how i want to run this at tournaments. Thank you, you are a more than worthy opponent! Now, I'll start by attacking my opponent's points and then moving on to reaffirm my own. First, this is a point i meant to bring up last round, but i forgot, and was under time constraints, i apologize. But CD is NOT necessarily non-violent. CD is simply breaking the law as a protest against an injustice. It could be violent, although , i admit, it is not often. Still, The resolution does not say that CD would necessarily be non-violent. I will tie this into one of my later points. And furthermore, This resolution is simply suggestive of violent methods and actions. Look at the wording! It's an appropriate WEAPON in the FIGHT for justice? Look at even my opponent's wording! "You do not use a pocket-knife to fight a war and you do not use a bazooka to hunt deer." One could argue that violence is NEVER justified. One could argue that in supporting this resolution, one would inherently be supporting the violent nature it implies. Later as I said, I will touch some more on this topic. Second, my opponent argues using an example that the majority pushes the minority, and makes it impossible to right this wrong legally. I would argue, that for a democracy to succeed, and avoid revolution, that the people (majority and minority) would have to make the laws at least satisfiable to both sides of an issue. A democracy inherently needs fair people who make fair laws. So a situation like that would be unlikely or impossible in a successful true democracy. A more likely scenario would be that the majority passed a law that does not oppress the minority, but the minority consider it morally wrong (like abortion. Some find it morally wrong, while others consider it okay, or the person's choice. Imagine, for this debate's sake, that the minority believed Abortion was immoral, and the majority thought it okay.) So what does the minority do? Persist, and not in the way my opponent twisted my wording (good job). Persist in the appropriate channels. They continue to make their point, make their arguments more available, and they may well sway the public. But if not, then there is not any reason to break the law. That would be breaking their social contract, and it would be the FIRST breach, not the second, because the government is fulfilling the majority's opinion of just laws, and the minority is not being oppressed. Thus CD would be an inappropriate and unjustified breach of the social contract. Now, on to my side of the flow to reaffirm before-mentioned points. First, it is in the nature of the true democracy that people's voices are heard. Not necessarily implemented, but heard. people make their points, and then take a vote. So a true democracy would already have just laws. Second, justifying CD justifies breaking the law for any reason. It justifies anarchy. If breaking the law is justified, what reason is there to adhere to those laws? none. Third, there is no guarantee that an individual's views will be implemented, as my opponent tried to make me say (sorta). Like i have said, a democracy ensures that every person's views are heard. Once the views are presented, the people would take a vote based on those views and on their conscience. Of course there is no guarantee your view will be the law, but your view will affect the people making the laws. Fourth, CD is now ineffective. As i quoted in my last argument, There is a "roach effect", where since the internet and media makes more information competing for our attention, the information we give our attention to, and the media gives us, ahs to be the most important, the most eye-catching. So to get our attention, CD campaigns must become more and more radical in their methods and approach. I am not, as my opponent implied in his last argument, arguing that CD is inherently radical simply because it is outside the law. I am arguing that the methods the users of CD must be more radical to even get attention. This opens these campaigns of CD to violent tactics, because sure as hell that will get attention. But at the same time that would marginalize the group. And you said, "just because the rally or sit-in may not make the six o'clock news does not affect its appropriateness as a weapon to fight injustice." I disagree. One of the primary functions of CD is to gain attention. The main way CD is successful is, as you said, highlighting the "injustice", or gain attention. If it does not make the news, far less people are reached, far less attention is gained. The only people who know about the rally or sit-in could well be people involved and people who happen to pass by. And that is why CD is ineffective in our time. I believe that is all the points i wanted to make, i hope i didn't miss anything or confuse things for people. SO to close, as a reminder of my final points, The resolution encourages violence. Supporting such a resolution could be viewed as support for violence. A situation where the majority oppresses the minority is not likely or possible in a true successful democracy. Persisting in legal boundaries would be the appropriate way to "fight injustice". People's views are already heard in a democracy. Justifying breaking the law is immoral and can lead to anarchy, as it leaves no reason to abide by laws set forth. And civil disobedience is ineffective in our age. That is why i negate the resolution: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. Thank yoy