Resolved: In a democracy, Civil Disobedience is morally justified.

My compliments to my opponent for this fine debate, and the manner in which it was conducted. I look forward to many more debates with him and wish him well in his life's ambitions. My final argument against the resolution that "in a democracy, civil disobedience is morally justified," will seek to codify my previous arguments while refuting those of my opponent. In my response in round one, I stated that it is impossible to agree upon what is right and what is wrong. Thus, there can be no universal justification for civil disobedience. Since the Resolution does not specify any restrictions, I must assume and react to the assumption that ALL civil disobedience is contended to be morally justified, even in the extreme where, say an individual or group feels thievery is a moral stand, civil disobedience (meaning the violation of a law, since "disobedience" is a active statement meaning violating rather than a passive statement meaning doing nothing to actively uphold a law) would require that a person steal something to DISobey that law. This entire resolution can be taken to the illogical extreme and still hold together due to the lack of restriction or definition of what is right or wrong in ANYone's eyes. Remember Robin Hood? OK for one group NOT empowered by law to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Also, in my response in round one, I brought up the question of private vs. public civil disobedience. My opponent has refuted that statement by stating that a civil disobedient act must be public, thus narrowing the debate to "Public Civil Disobedience" and then proposes a win by definition alone, that civil disobedience can never result in violence because it is not civil disobedience if violence occurs. But if a person engages in civil disobedience and a police officer pushes that person, either no violence has occurred or no civil disobedience has occurred. I contend that if civil disobedience RESULTS in violence, even if the "disobedient party" did not perform the violence, it still has resulted in violence and thus is not morally justified UNLESS the law broken is adjudicated to be immoral or unconstitutional and is overturned, thus absolving the party and, in the process, has provided a restriction to the resolution not originally included. I also must re-affirm my contention that to guarantee non-violence in a civil disobedience event is naive and unrealistic. And to be morally against violence (as a CD must be) but to invite violence as a response (as it often does) is either morally inept or simply a way to distance one from the results of one's actions, neither of which is a moral position. We must also, as stated in my first round, civil disobedience must be segregated from picketing, marches, inflammatory speeches, rallies and assemblies, etc. since these are already protected by the constitution and do not result in the disobeying of any law unless laws that are NOT being protested are being broken. In my second round argument, I contended that there is no moral justification for civil disobedience that engenders undesirable results. The ends do not necessarily justify the means. This also negates the resolution. I also state in my second round that a person engaging in civil disobedience is ultimately culpable for the results of that action, if not in a strictly legal sense certainly in a moral sense. The person has broken the law and as such is responsible for the actions resulting from that illegal act. Baiting the devil does not make one more moral. In this, my final round I must first respond to my opponent's final round statements: "However, for an event to change something such as a law is taking place, it is required to be public, in order for a change to happen. That is one of the parts and fundamentals of Civil Disobedience, which is the main concept." I disagree. It does not require a group to be defined as civil disobedience. An individual, privately and without fanfare can refuse to comply with a law on moral grounds. Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] My opponent also states: "The negative also states that those people will not want to accept their punishment of being arrested and taken to jail for breaking a law..." This was never asserted by me. However, non-violent acceptance of arrest certainly does not infer that civil disobedients agree to readily acquiesce without resistance to inhumane or violent, sometimes life-threatening actions against their persons as acceptable results of being civilly disobedient. By the same token, my opponent's assertion that this then nullifies the entire action of civil disobedience and magically converts it into revolution or terrorism, as a convenient way of claiming a victory. Civil disobedience, due to its inherent threat of a reduction into violent retaliation by opposing forces, is NOT morally justified in all cases. It may, in some instances, such as Thoreau's act of not paying taxes to support a war he opposed, may find some moral justification but, since the resolution encompassed ALL civil disobedience, con only requires one instance to negate the resolution. Thus, simply stated, the ends do not always, justify the means. I rest in hope of securing a favorable vote against the resolution that "Civil Disobedience is [always] justified."