The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

protests dharnas and fasts a correct way by citizens to get their demand fulfilled

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,184 times Debate No: 18171
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




yes its a correct way, when the govt does not listen to the people it is made for they are left with no other option


I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate.

Now to get started I would like you to define correct for me.

1) I think protesting is right, but sometimes it gets out of hand. Protesting should only be a last resort to get what you want. Protesting could eventually lead to riots like at the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968. The police might have to restort to force because that is the position they would be put by the protestors. So protesting can get violent and we all do not want that to happen. You can cause vadalism, injury, and catastrophe.

2) Can you get what you want through protests? When the healthcare bill was announced people protested against it, but it was still passed. When in Wisconsin a budget repair bill was announced many people protested, but the bill still got passed. When protestors wanted Richard Nixon to get impeached, he instead resigned. President Pierce passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act under alot of protest, but it was still passed. Protestors wnated Lyndon Johnson to leave Vietnam, but he did not.
Debate Round No. 1


when a govt does not pay heed to the needs of the people it represents what else are the people left with to get the govt know what they want from the govt. what actually are their needs...


My opponent has failed to define correct.

1) The government prefers to listen to rational people instead of people that yell in the streets and block traffic. In some cases the protestors make themselves look bad by the way they do things if they hurt people. When politicians here what we want they run for president to do those things. So we vote for which man we believe can do good. Protestors are usually the opposing members who voted for the loser.

2) Protests do not acheive everything and sometimes anything. How about you instead right emails or use a hotline then go in the streets and hold signs that the elected representiatives may not read. Protests in the UK occured over the death of a guy and that seems pointless and there are more reasons to that on why they are protesting, but really the death of some guy caused thousands to vandalize London.

My opponent seems to not care about adding external links to help her argument, so why should add myn.
Debate Round No. 2


shikha forfeited this round.


Ok then. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 1Historygenius 6 years ago
Why only two hours?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit