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

Pro contentions: PRO- Standard of Proof: Cross apply my third and fourth contentions. Who is my opponent to determine what is moral or immoral? I provide this quote (which was included in my first round): "Who says that Civil Disobedience is only used for purposes that promote basic rights? What one person says is a right that they have, another may say that it is immoral and wrong. " (Quinn in 2007, Carver pg. 23) If civil disobedience is deemed appropriate, then my opponent has to prove civil disobedience is appropriate in all instances. PRO-1 Democratic systems cant "exist with a sub class of slaves or individuals not granted any notion of citizenship, then they can also exist with varying degrees of laws regarding citizenship. " Just about everything my opponent stated in his contention against my definition sums up exactly what I'm trying to say. The difference is he is trying to find flaw within my definition. There are a couple things wrong with this: 1. He has at no point provided an opposing definition; therefore we have to look to mine. 2. Unless he can find a definition of democracy that says "democracy: the U. S. and German governments" this argument is invalid. 3. It is impossible for the flaw to be within the definition of democracy. The real problem is that because the United States and other so-called "democratic" countries have restricted the voice of their citizens, they aren't perfect democracies and do cease to be purely democratic, contrary to what my opponent has stated. My opponents attempt was to catch me on a technicality. However, regardless of whether or not these "democratic" countries he talks about became less-democratic through the functions of democracy, by the definition, they are no longer acting democratically. It is clear that restricting the voice and vote of minorities and citizens completely contradicts the very definition and principles of democracy. It is possible for people within democracy to vote in a way that ultimately does cause the corrosion of democracy. Until my opponent can prove this is not possible (which I don't understand how you can) his point fails. PRO-2) My definition of democracy states: "That 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. )" "directly or indirectly through a system of representation. " This statement proves my opponent wrong. Nowhere in my definition are representatives required, only a system of representation. This could mean any system where everyone is represented. My opponent's argument is that, in the United States, our "representatives" don't always represent the majority. His argument is self defeating because if these "representatives" truly aren't honoring and representing the voice of the majority, then in the United States we don't really have a "system of representation" like a democracy requires. Therefore, this point goes to the Con. "Almost every country and model of democracy has a very limited ability for citizens to participate. " The word limited, means that the whole body of citizens aren't represented, which contradicts the very definition of democracy. Therefore you cannot look to this point. PRO-3) First of all, John Locke argued that without a social contract, democracy cannot exist. In a democracy individuals are not required to violate their own conscience. Part of the social contract is that the democracy gives the citizen a voice and rights in return for an agreement from the citizen to obey the laws of the land (which are ultimately created by the citizens). Like I have mentioned, there are viable legal alternatives to civil disobedience that my opponent can only argue against outside of the context of democracy. Every situation or example my opponent has brought to light has involved a restriction of the voice of the people within that so-called "democratic" system. Through the legal alternatives that the democracy provides people can legally make their voice heard and legally make a change if they can convert their minority into a majority. The burden of proof is on the pro to prove that civil disobedience is necessary; he has failed to do this. Part of the criteria for civil disobedience is that it must be a last resort. My opponent has yet to offer an example when (within democratic circumstances) civil disobedience was a last resort. Once again I offer this source as my rebuttal to the idea that civil disobedience is sometimes appropriate. "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. " Christopher Gray, author of "Civil Disobedience: Philosophy of Law" "He does not try to argue that any law that emerges in democracy is inherently just. " I cannot argue this. Determining what is just would require me to define what is moral, and what may seem moral to me may not seem moral to someone else. PRO-4) "…instead I am arguing that in some case as long as individuals are willing to accept the consequence of their actions, they are not acting counter the legitimacy of a democracy. " Despite that my opponent is yet to offer any such case where this is appropriate within a democracy. By deeming breaking the law for the sake of your cause appropriate, we deem it appropriate for any and every cause. Doing this contradicts the principles of democracy. Hence, the social contract theory. "We should as a society just overall whether an action is just or unjust based on its cause or result but not inherently label violations of the law as in and of themselves contra democracy. " Once again, since no one person can determine what is just or unjust (moral or immoral), if we deem civil disobedience appropriate, everyone's cause has to be considered just, therefore, it does contradict democracy. PRO-5) "The purpose of civil disobedience is to galvanize public opinion…Thus, only righteous causes that actually can generate sympathy can utilize civil disobedience to any purposeful end. " You can replace the words "civil disobedience" with any of the legal alternatives that I have offered and the statement is still true. My opponent has yet to prove that this is unique to civil disobedience. Plus his argument is completely irrelevant. We are discussing whether civil disobedience is appropriate in a democracy, not how often it would be practiced or whether or not it would create an actual change. ". .a law in Utah for instance banned waving a foreign flag without an American flag along with it. Once individuals broke this law. .. the law was dismissed. " Once again, my opponent proves no uniqueness. This same response could have occurred through a petition, a court case, a letter, or a protest. None of the "democracies" my opponent has given examples of are true democracies. While it is true that the majority can inflict such laws as he stated, once they do so, they are contradicting the definition and principles of democracy. Note: I cross-applied all of my points within this third round Throughout this debate the Pro has given no evidence to support his claims. He has merely made speculations that I have disproved through logic, expert opinions, and evidence.