Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified.

I spent a great deal of time this last weekend thinking about this debate, and how to respond. Here it goes. Pro concludes "Conclusion: A mischaracterization that is stifling our debate over Civil Disobedience and hypocritical given that you don't abide by the same standard yourself, which I've shown from round two, but the difference being I am consistent enough to approach my opponent's argument." After reading and re-reading this debate, I have come to the conclusion that pro is right. I have been hypocritical. I apologize. Pro says "Does this not constitute informed argument? Did I need to give a citation to define Federal Government, the enumeration of powers, Constitution, United States, Tenth Amendment, and General Welfare Clause to give you a definition or is it unreasonable to assume you have knowledge of each?" Pro seems to be pretty upset with the way I have engaged in this debate. I apologize. Pro says "I have responded to your objection regarding citation of the Declaration of Independence, even though the abuses presently tower over the abuses that warranted America's independence. Regrettably, my opponent believes repeating the same thing qualifies as rebuttal. So I repeat my original rebuttal - "The word "despotism" means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and should not be confused with 'despot'". And yet I must endure charges of conjecture!" Just to be clear, It seems absurd to me to call the current U.S. Government tyrannical or that we are being ruled "in the fashion of a despot." Pro says "Pointing to other nations with even greater restrictions doesn't undermine my argument the least bit." The reason I find it absurd to call our nation despotic or tyrannical is because of the comparison of the U.S. to other nations, both in history and present day. "A) Running out of space, but here goes: my opponent claims my second contention is "extreme Libertarianism," which is another mischaracterization and list different forms of it in response without explaining what he considers extreme or how they pertain to me personally or to the contention. Like me ascribing extreme Progessivism to his contention." As I seem to have offended my opponent, I apologize for using the term "extreme." I did not realize it would be a sore spot. Pro says "B) The government collection of all communications would be an obvious reference to the astonishing revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the NSA. The collection of rainwater is an obvious reference to the case of Gary Harrington. Yes, the payroll tax is a form of tyranny considering the state takes your money before you ever see it and calls it a contribution but argues you have no legal right to it. While my opponent's reactions become increasingly puerile, to speak of toilets, shows how absurdly intrusive government has become through environmental and efficiency requirements via EERE. Yes, Michelle Obama lobbied and her husband signed into law a federal statue called the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010." These examples you have given, I leave to the voters to determine if this is "disobedience" to the social contract, or constitutes tyranny. Pro says "I don't appreciate an opponent who engages in frivolous maneuver throughout the debate using mischaracterizations to avoid in engaging in substantive debate on the arguments and doing it repeatedly. I don't appreciate an [3] opponent that charges a lack of citation when your citations are basically definitions." I apologize that this debate has been frivolous, and I apologize for the role that I played in that. Concluding This debate: As I stated in my first argument, There are issues with and caused by civil disobedience. In the current political climate in the United States it is more efficient to petition the government through existing laws. If there do exist unjust laws, we the people are empowered with voting rights, among other rights to go about effecting change. This has rendered Civil disobedience both an immoral and obsolete option in the United States. I feel this is evident when you observe the modern day United States as compared to the majority of other nations throughout all of time. I reject the idea that the actions of the modern United States could be characterized as "tyrannical" or that we are ruled through despotism. I feel as though this debate has been a waste of my time, and my opponents. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and for any hypocritical behavior.