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

My opponent makes many valid points, however he failed to comprehensively prove that civil disobedience is inappropriate. -- My opponent said: "It is also true that people with certain religious beliefs or people with strong personal convictions (such as the pacifists who refused to fight in the last World Wars) may feel justified in breaking the law, but they must and should pay the consequences because laws enacted by a democratically elected government represent the will of the majority of people." -Those committing civil disobedience should not deny their binding obedience and fidelity to the law. As long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their action under the rule of law, they demonstrate their continued obedience to the social contract that they have entered with a people and government. By abiding by the rules of justice in this way, they maintain a moral high ground for disputing injustices; presumably more fundamental and significant ones committed by a government (typically). My opponent also said: "In conclusion, whilst civil disobedience can certainly be justified in countries where the citizens have no other option than to rise up against their oppressors, it is unacceptable in a democracy because in this type of country the government is the servant of the people and if the political party in power's performance is unsatisfactory the citizens have the opportunity to replace it with another at the next general election." -Lets examine this idea of " if the political party in power's performance is unsatisfactory the citizens have the opportunity to replace it with another at the next general election." You said yourself, in democracies such as Britain "This is probably because Britain (as my opponent duly pointed out) does not have a constitution and also because all Acts of Parliament must be approved by the head of state, the monarch, who is not elected." -What about the Brits? They do not elect their monarch, who has supreme rule over the land. In conclusion, the bottom line is that civil disobedience is breaking of the law as a form of political protest. An act of law breaking can only be considered civil disobedience when the protester willingly accepts the punishments associated with crime he or she committed. An important thing to keep in mind when discussing civil disobedience is that acts that the laws that the protester may be breaking may themselves not be objectionable. For instance, a common form of civil disobedience is disrupting traffic or trespassing on public property. In these instances, the protester is not protesting traffic laws or the laws of trespass. Instead, the protester is breaking the law in order to make a point. I argue that, by definition, civil disobedience includes a willingness to accept punishment associated with violating the law. In this case, as long as all consequences of a protester's actions are accepted, it would be unacceptable to suggest that this is inappropriate. Every citizen has an obligation to follow laws of the country and state they live in. They also have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If one feels that their cause is just, and accepts the consequences of breaking the law, how is this inappropriate?