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

I reject the Pro standard of proof completely. He is correct that I am not an authority to determine what is moral or immoral, but what I have presented and what has never once in this round even been attacked or mentioned by my opponent is that there is a self regulatory mechanism to civil disobedience which, given that in a democracy we do have faith in the moral faculties and deciding power of the people, ensures that civil disobedience for a cause that can not gain traction among a large swath of the people as a moral cause will exhaust itself. I did not need to establish that Civil disobedience is moral in every single instance but only that it is necessary in some cases that can arise in a democracy and that there is a mechanism in place for self regulation of this process. None of my arguments on this matter were responded to and certainly stand. We should look at the con definition of democracy as it has become very relevant in this round. I want to highlight some of the basic assumptions my opponent makes that is in no way inherent to the definition of democracy he provides. 1) No slave class or non citizens in society. (I pointed this out not to poke holes but to reveal that a society such as slave holding Athens or pre Civil-War U.S.A is truly still a democracy) 2) Judicial avenues of review for laws ( not true in every democracy and certainly not in ancient Athens) 3) No laws regulating speech 4) Continual ability of citizens to impact the process ( If citizens had no impact on how government were run except for at the ballot box we would live in the most extreme form of representative democracy but it would still fall under the definition of democracy) There are others, but the key is that the more of these assumptions are not in place, the more we can easily imagine scenarios where no other avenue of protest or impact can be found. I have shown, however, that even in the case where all of these assumptions are in place, that due to systemic, monied power or the distance and difficulty to reach out to government, Civil disobedience may be a citizens only true way to impact government. I would also love to point out that the quotes my opponent uses such as his oft repeated Christopher Gray quote actually come from pro Civil-disobedience writings. Gray actually uses his argument rhetorically show argue that we can forever preoccupy ourselves with inefficient channels in a democracy, but that justice can not be deffered. We can always write more letters, but if those letters fall on deaf ears and never impact the process than we need to find alternatives avenues clearly. My opponent is flat wrong about John Locke. Locke clearly stated that unjust laws should be ignored by citizens of conscience. Locke held that an unjust law violated the social contract and individual had an obligation to their concience. Moreover, my opponent has failed to respond to my fundamental argument about authority in a democracy. Breaking a law does not mean that we reject the authority of society to make and enforce laws in so much as we are willing to take the consequences of that legal violation. This is choosing to the take the stick in the carrot and stick presentation of a law. We always have the right to break a law without it violating our social contract as long as we are willing to accept the consequences. This goes back to my social regulation argument which never gets a response because violations of a law can only be used in very limited circumstances to make a point about the lack of justice of a law. I hope that I have effectively shown the need for civil disobedience in many cases in society. My opponents own reliance on court cases betrays a knowledge that in most cases test cases and legal violations are needed to challenge a law. Someone needs to be hurt or punished under an unjust law in order to have the validity of that law properly tested and to establish legal standing. Protests may be limited in a legitimate democracy meaning that avenues are curtailed. Even if this is not the case, it is often impossible to affect peoples sense of justice until they see the suffering a law can inflict. Civil disobedience makes the impact of a law concrete and unavoidable. It draws the justice system and the legal system into the process casting a very clear glare on it. If this sounds repetitious relative to my prior arguments, it is because none of these things were responded to effectively at all. Because breaking a law and going to jail involves picking up a burden and limiting ones freedom, it draws attention and makes it clear that individuals are willing to sacrifice for their cause. None of these things emerge through any of the avenues my opponent suggested. My opponent has widely made assumptions about what a democracy is, but when you unpack a democracy you see that curtailments on speech, expression, impact and even voting can exist well within its sphere. Even in the most favorable type of democracy that my opponent suggests I have made clear that civil disobedience does not break the social contract and can often be the most effective and a legitimate form of action and protest.