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

First of all, my last sentence was cut off for some reason. It should have said " the avenues that side con suggest are inefficient or do not exist without civil disobedience actions." First of all, lets look at the definition of democracy as this is obviously fundamental to the round. First of all, inherant to the definition used is the word "free people." Why is this relevant? If Democratic systems can exist with a sub class of slaves or individuals not granted any notion of citizenship, then they can also exist with varying degrees of laws regarding citizenship. Laws including or excluding who can or can not be part of the electorate can not by definition mean the corrosion of a democracy. By that logic, America was not a democracy before our more recent amendment allowing those of age 18-21 to vote or that because 18 is viewed as the voting age in most democratic countries they cease to be democracies. Blocking Felon voting is another example of a legitimate practice that is widely practiced The demos in a democracy has to have the ability to define for itself who is part of that voting block without ceasing to be a democracy. This is logical and totally inherent to the concept of democracy. This is why even your Black's dictionary definition includes the concept of free citizens. Moreover, the fact is that these things do happen in every democratic society we have ever known. Thus, these are real situations that citizens in a democracy face. Moving on. My opponent totally mishandles my second argument. Democratic systems often enter into an equilibrium of consent between parties in which true injustices are not touched. Note the consensus over slavery or civil rights in American history, or the mistreatment of any minority group in most democracies ( I could spent hours talking about the Bedouin in Israel for instance if you want me to). This is the key of my argument that is ignored. Voting on certain issues can do little to actually impact the status quo. Something dramatic often must be done to bring attention to certain issues. Then, my opponent tries to sleazily contradict his own definition of democracy he spent so much time arguing about. His Black's definition of Democracy explicitly includes republican rule and this is obviously the only system that actually has any practical relevance. Moreover, my opponent constantly mentioned representatives in his initial argument. The right to vote does not guarantee any semblance of power. Almost every country and model of democracy has a very limited ability for citizens to participate. Even if thats different, we still have to factor in that civil disobedience can have a dramatic affect on public opinion and if used properly galvanize people to fight an injustice they never knew existed before. In response to my third point, my opponent does provide a substantive though flawed argument so that is at least appreciated. It is clear that he has used his victory briefs quotes effectively. The problem here, is that the notion of a social contract can not bind individuals to totally violate their own conscience. Even John Locke argued that disobedience or even revolutions against unjust regimes or laws was completely justified. To suggest that a social contract binds one to follow blindly any result of a democratic election is to undermine the notion of the individual in the system and the very notion of morality. Note, that side con does not deny that unjust laws can exist. He does not try to argue that any law that emerges in democracy is inherently just. He just says that other avenues are better. Yet, he gives no reason why other avenues such as law suits are any more legitimate within the mechanism of democracy. I think my opponent does not understand my argument of individual choice of action very well. A democracy is a system in which individuals agree to abide by the authority of the masses or the representative of the masses in order to institute codes of justice and an overall system of consequences and punishments. There is nothing in the definition of democracy that implies that one cedes his or her ability to choose how to act. I am not saying that individuals are inherently justified in breaking laws, instead I am arguing that in some case as long as individuals are willing to accept the consequence of their actions, they are not acting counter the legitimacy of a democracy. We should as a society just overall whether an action is just or unjust based on its cause or result but not inherently label violations of the law as in and of themselves contra democracy. My argument about the likelihood of unjust civil disobedience actions is actually quite relevant. My opponent spends a long while arguing that civil disobedience would lead to every cause and group being disobedient. I give lots of arguments as to why this is wrong. The purpose of civil disobedience is to galvanize public opinion. In and of itself, without doing so, Civil disobedience can only result in the arrest of the followers of a movement and its running out of steam. Thus, only righteous causes that actually can generate sympathy can utilize civil disobedience to any purposeful end. It is only when those who appear innocent victims of a system willingly allow themselves arrested in protest, that sympathy is generate. Malicious actions of disobedience only generate antipathy and resentment towards a movement. Thus, civil disobedience is a self propelling force only in the hands of rightful causes. Civil disobedience has the purpose usually of galvanizing opinion by showing the injustice of a law. Last year, a law in Utah for instance banned waving a foreign flag without an American flag along with it. Once individuals broke this law, jurors quickly refused to punish because of the flagrant absurdity of the law and the law was dismissed. This law could have stayed on the books as do millions of anachronistic sexual laws or other random laws and could have prevented individual action had not conscious decisions been made to break and test the legal validity of the law. Thus, in most democratic societies, there has to be a legal action against an individual through some harm before standing can be held. Please note that this is in the light most favorable to my opponent in the sense that judicial avenues for overturning laws on constitutional or moral grounds even exist. In societies such as the UK, laws can not be overturned on any constitutional grounds, and in some societies such as France laws are only reviewed when initially passed and can no longer after that point be challenge on constitutional grounds. Even in the most litigious societies, a test case and the violation of laws is needed. My opponent makes no claims to why in the definition of democracy he uses the expressive rights of some citizens will not be denied. Indeed, it is easy to see that majorities can inflict such laws on ideas they dislike. The bottom line here is that the act of getting out on the streets, protesting or voicing ones views can in and of itself often be an act of civil disobedience. I've given innumerable examples of good "democracies" doing so. Sometimes, it is only when individuals show themselves willing to sacrifice their liberty and freedom for a cause, that public attention can shift to something. An arrest draws swift attention as it brings out the police force, entangles the justice system and places the matter in front of peer juries. It is a force that brings hidden stories to light and to question in ways that other avenues presented by con can not do. It is often necessary when groups can not be heard either systemically or for other reasons and must be supported and upheld as a vital tool in any conscientious democracy.