Debate and civil disobedience?

Question

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

I need really really good arguments for and against this statement and why. Please Explain!

Answer 1

Ron Paul before the senate, on civil disobedience...

Civil Disobedience is real Patriotism!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

(Full 24 minute speech, watch it if you are sick of the 30 second clips debates try to force his ideas into)

All Pros, No Cons because you are fighting peacefully for what you know is right!

Answer 2

Civil disobedience, as opposed to civil unrest or rioting, is an appropriate weapon against what is seen as an injustice because it is not just an attempt to force change, but it shows a willingness to accept consequences.  It requires a willingness and the personal fortitude to carry something on through from court to court to a final resolution, which is the whole purpose of this type of action.

This is disobedience against a portion of the status quo that is felt to be unjust, not an uprising against society in general.  If at any point, the disobedient become violent, the point of the action will have been lost.

Answer 3

PRO

-provides people a last resort

-ensure justice

-gives minority a voice

CON

-invades the rights of others (Trespassing)

-breaks social contract(we have obligation to obey laws)

-There are many legal/more effective options

ten points?

message me if u need more, but thats my case :)