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

I will first refute what the negative stated and then I will rebuild the affirmative. The negative states that most of the more recent acts of civil disobedience have resulted in violence, some times in the act of Civil Disobedience itself but many times more often in the reaction of those opposed to the actions of the disobedients, and/or those charged with the duty of preserving the peace and safety they view as threatened by the demonstration. As I stated in my affirmative speech, Civil Disobedience is a non-violent event; it must be predominantly non‐violent. This requirement is necessary to distinguish civil disobedience from acts of overt terrorism or revolution. Stated, CD is a step below revolution. By using violence, protestors attack the government's very existence. Civil disobedience then degenerates into revolution, and the state has a legitimate right to use force to defend itself. The negative also states in his first point that those who do civil disobedience will get arrested. The protester who engages in a peaceful, open, unlawful action must also be willing to pay the penalty for that action. Civil disobedience is not, and must not become, an open invitation to anarchy. Even though a particular law may be unjust, the protester has a responsibility to society to uphold the fundamental integrity of the civic order. Properly understood, acceptance of punishment and arrest does not justify illegal conduct. Otherwise, civil disobedience would undermine the rule of law by suggesting that law breakers could purchase the right to commit crimes by agreeing to pay the price. Instead, acceptance of punishment constitutes recognition of the wrongness of the protest and a willingness to act in all other regards in abidance with law. The negative also stated that it in my affirmative constructive, I have never defined violence. Since I stated that CD is not a violent offense, and most people know what "violence" is, I didn't define it. So, I will define it now. Violence is defined by Princeton Dictionary as an act of aggression. Negative states that he finds it difficult to believe it to be morally against violence and at the same time beg for violence to illustrate a moral viewpoint. Violence does not occur in Civil Disobedience. If it were violent, it would not be considered civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has as its goal, not the destruction of the social order, but its reform or, to use more utopianistic language, purification. Because of the inevitable tension inherent in illegal protest, disobedients must not only eschew violence at the outset of their actions but also assess their ability to remain peaceful given the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their conduct. To clarify, the definition of civil disobedience. .. let's decode the term "civil disobedience" and its hidden meanings. Civil disobedience is a non‐violent act of breaking the law openly and publicly, without harming others, and accompanied by a willingness to accept punishment. The term "civil disobedience" is built on an oxymoron that reflects the positive and negative aspects of the concept. Strict law and order proponents take the view that the term "civil disobedience" is "semantically inaccurate" because disobedience cannot be civil (acceptable in a civilized society) "In democratic societies any violation of the law is an uncivil act. " Opponents of civil disobedience claim that civil disobedients actually flaunt their lack of civility. In other words, civil disobedience is about disobeying the law, and disobeying the law simply cannot be deemed "civil" in a society that values order and stability.