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

thanks for accepting the challenge, based on your first argument you seem to be an experienced debater. I'm looking forward to this debate. First let me apologize for not even offering a definition of justice! Although i do not like to get into "Definition debates" i would offer my own definition. Justice is a condition, a morally correct state of things. Your first point was basically the argument that in a democracy there can be injustice through tyranny by majority, or the majority pushes around the minority. You said, and I quote: 1. "My opponents view of a democracy where every person's view is heard and implemented equally is only possible in a single person state, which defeats the prime reason for government." 2. "In my opponents "true" democracy, the minority can have their voice heard, they can shout their view from the mountaintops, yet there is no guarantee that the majority will grant their demands. The existence of a democratic government does not imply the existence of a just government." I never said that every person's view is heard AND implemented in a true democracy. I simply said their view is heard. In a real democracy people's voices are heard. Not everyone gets the way they want. But this is true of basically all government. People are bound to disagree. Not everyone can have their way. Democracy simply expresses more people's views than other governments. And since not everyone can agree, people compromise, or persist. They can work out a law that is at least closer to satisfying everyone. Or they can keep trying to pass different versions of that law. they can continue to fight for that. But OF COURSE there is no guarantee that the majority will grant the minority's demands, no matter where they shout it from. But my opponent seems to think that through CD everyone's views will be implemented. Just as it would not work with a democracy (or any government), it cannot work through CD. If a campaign of CD succeeded in getting a law overturned, the minority succeeds in getting their views implemented. But then the majority's views are NOT! And is that fair for a democracy? Is that just in a democracy? It sounds more like a dictatorship where one or a few people's views are implemented, rather than the interests of the majority. And that does not sound just (or like a democracy) to me. On my opponents second point, he says that the government is in violation of the social contract when it doesn't offer justice, or allows an unjust law. He claims that CD simply repairs the social contract. First, i would like to say that, according to my definition of justice, justice is not universal. Just like i said in my previous rebuttal, people disagree. People have different morals. Therefore, a state of justice is not possible for multiple people, as the people will disagree. So a government cannot offer justice in the first place. Second, although, as my opponent states, "Civil disobedience seeks to repair a damaged social contract." What it seeks to achieve is not always what it ends up with. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In reality, they are not" - ??. CD is not the right "weapon" to use to fix the government, because, it doesn't work anymore. Consider this quote, from a Singapore writer on CD: "These days, it just takes more to shock us. Content isn't king! ... Not if one considers information is even competing with information as it tries to grab a slice of our diminishing aperture of consciousness...CD these days is a victim of the "roach-spray- effect" (the more you spray us, the more we develop immunity and the larger your doses need to be!)." Thus attempts to attract attention, gain sympathy, and achieve goals have to be more and more radical. And the more radical you get, the less SUPPORT you get. You get plenty of attention being radical, but little or none of that attention is positive. Ben Wolff in an article concerning "Civil Disobedience" against the draft said : "I understand that we do not have a draft to resist right now, but does that mean we should break another random law to compensate, regardless of whether that law is unjust? I don't think that actions should necessarily be considered heroic or altruistic just because they are illegal. In fact, sometimes it can really hurt your cause. When thousands of anti-globalization protestors block off the entire downtown area of Washington, D.C., for example, something resembling an American flag goes up in my brain. Preventing the blue-collar population of the District from getting to their jobs because you have a bone to pick with the World Bank is hardly a good way to fight poverty. I want to be clear on what we are saying with our actions so I feel comfortable showing up at protests. Activism...seems to be running short right now, and I think it's partly because certain methods are seen as irrational and ineffective. " So because of time constraints on my part, i will conclude now by recapping my rebuttals: Democracy does not call for all views to be implemented,and CD only hurts the "fight for justice"; and CD is ineffective due to its nature in our time. Sorry i cannot continue to make points and pursue arguments, but i have a life outside of the internet. (GASP) thank you