Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.
Very LDish once again. Some points of view that come to mind:
- Civil disobedience is only allowed in a democracy. It frustrates the powers at large to make policy changes that are good for society and, usually, are locked up with political stalemate. Consider Martin Luther King and his peaceful marches and jail time as a "weapon in the fight for justice" against the Jim Crow laws of the mid-20th century.
- Argue that civil disobedience is an inherent part of democracy. If the "law" is unjust, what other course is there besides purposely breaking the law to expose its injustice? Take (what's her name?). When the law forbid blacks from sitting in the front of the bus, the only recourse for the unjust law was to sit in front of the bus.
- What if everyone started violating the law for what they think is unjust? Take Napster, for instance. He deliberately broke copyright law because he felt the law unjust. Millions of dollars in the music industry down the tubes because of one civil disobedient person.
- Note the term "weapon." The resolution deliberately uses a combative word to describe a peaceful solution to injustice. What do you think of that?
- Notice the term "appropriate." It isn't "best" or "preferred." The term means the debate i contemplating the validity of such action. You could argue on the pragmatic results of civil disobedience. Is it worth it or isn't it?
Coach Jeub
Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.
