The Instigator
debaterstud18
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
wiredpilot12
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,293 times Debate No: 3472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (12)

 

debaterstud18

Pro

My partner and I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution that Resolved civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.. For the purpose of this debate we find it necessary to explain a few things: first, we are debating whether or not civil disobedience is AN appropriate weapon, that means that we do not need to prove that it’s the only or even the best available weapon but that it is a choice. We find it necessary to define the term civil disobedience, philosopher John Rawls states, “civil disobedience is a public, non violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.”
Our first contention is that, due to the lack of others ways, civil disobedience becomes often the only option for those who seek justice. Through legal methods change is hindered by procedural rules and internal corruption. Our government was meant to be of, for, and by the people, however under the status quo it has become elitist. Looking at the available channels one can see the numerous problems, first in the court system. One major problem of the court system is that the poor can not afford the expenses of an attorney, thus justice is only available to the wealthy. Another way to enact change is through congress but the fact is that congress is slow and often corrupt. The legislative process has been watered down since the beginning of our nation. It took over 150 years for women to gain the right to vote in our country, and over 200 years for African-Americans to receive voting rights. The influence of money also corrupts Congress. This feeling is expressed by Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics who says“There's a feeling you can't be heard in Washington unless you have an official lobbyist." On one side of a issue regarding a Health Care initiative there was a majority of 65 % supporting it. As the issue was presented, the majority aligned in support of it, but subsequently the American Medical Association put $18.52 Million towards lobbying against it. Even though there was a strong majority supporting the issue, the AMA's $18.52 Million dollars prevented this initiative from being passed.
Our second Contention is that there is no inherent obligation to follow unjust laws. According to Bastiat, author of the book “The Law,“ ”law is a negative concept, its purpose is to prevent injustice” At the point where law fails at this obligation there is no prima face (pre-assumed) obligation to follow the law. Under our Declaration of Independence we have not only the right but the obligation to disobey unjust laws and government in an effort to achieve desired social changes. Also beyond the moral obligation there is in fact a legal obligation; Under the Nuremberg Principles, you can actually face international prosecution for not being civilly disobedient. In essence it states that if a national law requires you to kill someone, as it did with the Nazis, you can still be prosecuted under international laws forbidding murder. Thus, in order to avoid international prosecution, one would have to civilly disobey the laws of their country. Its important to remember that the law does not always determine what is morally right or wrong.
Our third contention is that the that results from civil disobedience are beneficial; whether the civil disobedience actually inspires change, the discussion it creates brings us closer to justice. According to Rawls civil disobedience must be a public action, it is not a covert act which it gives it the ability to incite change. This notion is best explained by Howard Zinn, an American historian and political scientist, who observes that people are troubled by civil disobedience. But that's exactly the purpose of civil disobedience, to upset people, to trouble them, and to disturb them into taking action. No matter which side of the issue the action is on, it is still creating a channel for discussion. This is why according to Dr. Kimberley Brownlee, a political philosopher at the University of Oxford,” by civilly disobeying the law, a person seeks not only to convey her disavowal and condemnation of a certain law or policy, but also to draw public attention to this particular issue and thereby to instigate a change in law or policy.” As Bertrand Russell observed, it is typically difficult to make the most salient facts in a dispute known through conventional channels of participation because the controllers of mainstream media give defenders of unpopular views limited space to make their case. Even if the action does not result in change the discussion it creates brings us closer to a solution. This theory is called Micro-political action, it means that if there is more discussion and attempts at achieving justice, we will come closer and eventually achieve a solution to the problem.
As a result of the contentions above, we urge an affirmative ballot.
wiredpilot12

Con

wiredpilot12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
debaterstud18

Pro

so he didnt respond to any of my arguements so extend all of them and vote aff right there. Also remember that in certain regimes like Russia and even other parts of the world like Cuba and what not there are NO legal channels and this is the only way to institue change. So for human rights, social progress and justice vote aff!
wiredpilot12

Con

wiredpilot12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
debaterstud18

Pro

welll this was a hard win =/ w.e I wonder as far as the tournament goes if I can debate someone else on this topic because I really like this topic.
wiredpilot12

Con

wiredpilot12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
THEmanlyDEBATER WINS FOR VOTING ARBITRARILY.
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER2 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER2
CON WINS FOR HAVING A LIFE.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
REMINDER: As far as the tournament goes, if you forfeit two rounds within the debate, you automatically forfeit...

Luke Cumbee
Posted by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
lol constructive. January pf was weird.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wiredpilot12 8 years ago
wiredpilot12
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by colbert4prez 9 years ago
colbert4prez
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by debaterstud18 9 years ago
debaterstud18
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jjrazz 9 years ago
jjrazz
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by flyinfur 9 years ago
flyinfur
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
debaterstud18wiredpilot12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03