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

I support the statement that civil disobedience should not be used as a form of political change and that civil disobedience has not not truly helped America or any other society as much as one would think. I accept your definition of civil disobedience. May I also clarify that just because civil disobedience as a thought may be of that without violence, does not mean that the act of civil disobedience will lead not lead to violence and worst political situations. May I begin by saying that it is foolish to encourage civil disobedience based upon a few dozen successful rebellions against the hundreds of thousands that have failed and ended with or prolong mass killings. Take modern day Syria for example. What begin as a peaceful protest inspired by the works of Gene Sharp has now exploded into something much worse than a civil war. Although the Syrian regime was oppressive and immoral, it was nothing compared to what it is now. Let's examine the current state of the country. You having people fleeing by the hundreds of thousands each month, mass killing and inhumane activities by all factions (FSA, Syrian army, etc), jobs are almost nonexistent, buildings and homes being destroyed, children being used as cannon fodder, the economy is in shambles and much, much more. And to make situations worse, multiple foreign countries are using mercenaries against Syria, for they can have a political edge in their government. And what of the factions? Surely Islamist factions or foreign factions will not accept the establishment of the FSA and the FSA won't accept them. Meaning that even after Assad loses power, they will be fighting among themselves forever; constantly backed by foreign powers. It is safe to say that the "civil disobedience" used for change has not only backfired, but doomed both sides for eternity into a proxy war state. There are many, many more examples around the world, yet my opponent chooses to focus on the relative few. May I also state that what you believe to be civil disobedience is in fact inner-civil rebellion in most cases. Where the non conservative side of society (B) rebels against the social regulations and implementations of the conservative society (A) in which cases the government either supports or excuses the implementations of A, thus causing B to revolt against not necessarily the government--even if they believe they are--but another aspect of their own civil society. Whether it be the right for the black man to vote or for the women's rights. Furthermore, civil disobedience, successful or not, has a toll on social stability and economical stability as well. Whether it be striking for better pay (loss of jobs and income, thus causing a loss of revenue and business), marching in the street against a war (which does nothing, i.e. Vietnam and Iraq), and other non-direct factors only irritate the government and society A, which can cause violent clashes with Society A and the law enforcement against society B. If the government truly wants something to be, then there will be no changes. That applies for both democracies and dictatorships. Finally and most importantly, simply because you are the majority, and simply because a small minority of people assembles together to cause a commotion, DOES NOT mean that their objectives and intentions are justified and should be implemented into all of society. For example, if 90% of the population stopped working and began marching in the streets unannounced and causing chaos because they wanted murder to be legal, should they get what they want? No. A pure democracies are immoral and unjust. The 51% should not have the authority over the 49%. There are many alternatives to civil disobedience, but keep in mind that sometimes--very few--it is needed. And if you were to tally all the actions of civil disobedience, you will find that it does more harm than good. "More often than not, we need civil disobedience, or we might as well just go to communism where the government controls everything and anything." I know this isn't the rebuttal round yet but where the hell did Communism come from? Also, one should know that true Communism neutralizes the state, meaning government has little to no power. Communism has never controlled everything, has it is in the hands of the people. The distorted view of Communism you have is not Communism, but an autocratic dictatorship; Stalinist totalitarianism.