Civil Disobedience
These are my cases from second semester of my sophomore year. If you're looking
for cases on the current or new resolution, too bad. You are a much more effective
debater if you put your own thought into the resolution and write your own cases.
By the way, my style of writing cases (and most people's style for that matter) is
like this, and not everything that I say during my speech is written down. A lot
of the stuff like C2 (contention 2) is implied, so don't go up there and read "C2..."
Also, you might notice that these cases are basically refutations of each other.
If you were smart, you would NOT do this because it would be easy for other debaters
to catch on and find easy refutations to your cases. If you really want to do something
like this (for instance if you are too lazy or just a plain crappy case writer like me)
I guess you could, but I don't suggest it.
Warning: I'm not the best case writer. This is just the basic structure. I'm
sure some other debaters can help you even more in perfecting your case.
Negative case
Intro: "That a peasant may become king does not render the kingdom democratic." -Woodrow Wilson
Resolve : Civil disobedience is justified in a democracy.
Value : Justice - giving each his due.
Value Criteria : Democratic society. A democratic government is a government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. The best way to give each his or her due is through a democratic government. Also since the resolution asks if civil disobedience is justified in a democracy, whoever can maintain the best democratic society wins today’s debate.
C1 - There is no need for another check on the government.
A. A democracy is a check for itself. There are other ways to demonstrate your opposition to a law, such as protesting and petitioning, so civil disobedience is not necessary. Also by the process of a democracy, the law was passed by the majority of the people. That means that the minority will be the ones committing civil disobedience, acting on their opinions. There is no way every single person will be satisfied with every single law. With civil disobedience, any minority person can violate laws that they don’t agree with. This renders laws useless if people are justified to break them. Then there would be no point in having laws or a government because anyone can break the law at will.
B. Civil disobedience is an improper check. The point of making laws are to protect rights. So when you break laws, you violate rights. No government can allow this because the purpose of a government is to protect rights. Some laws may not directly violate any of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, other rights are violated. Social contract rights will be violated. The social contract guarantees that the government will do its best to protect the rights of the people. This requires the cooperation of the people. If people do not agree to follow laws, the government cannot effectively protect rights.
C2 - Civil disobedience destroys the concept of democracy.
A. Quick is not always good. For instance the fastest way to make laws is to have one person decide everything. This is not good because this destroys the concept of a democracy and there is a high chance of the laws being unjust. Protesting and going through the whole process of getting the public to acknowledge the unjust law may be slower, but it is the only way to maintain a democratic society. Also, quicker mechanisms are usually easier. When people stop working within the system and start taking quicker and easier ways, they forget other mechanisms that are essential to a democratic society.
B. Civil disobedience puts people above the law. The Aff side is contradictory because their goal is to obtain equality between the people and the government, however they put the people above the law. By definition, there is already a balance of power within a democratic government. Remember a democracy is a government by the people. If there was no balance of power between the government and the people it would not be a democratic government. By justifying for people to break laws, the Aff side is placing the people above the law. This ruins the balance of power within the government.
Affirmative case
Intro : "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame." - Confucius
Resolve : Civil disobedience is justified in a democracy.
Definitions :
Civil disobedience - Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of nonviolent means.
Value : Justice - giving each his due.
Value Criteria : Democratic society. A democratic government is a government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. The best way to give each his or her due is through a democratic government. Also since the resolution asks if civil disobedience is justified in a democracy, whoever can maintain the best democratic society wins today’s debate.
C1 - Civil disobedience allows for a balance of power within society.
A. Civil disobedience acts as a check on the government. Granted, laws are passed by a majority, but laws must be repeatedly checked to make sure that they are just. There are two reasons for this. First, the majority may have passed an unjust law. Second, even if the law was just to begin with, governments and ways of thinking are in constant change. Sometimes people will have a change of ideas and want to reform laws. Other times, there needs to be a motivation for a change in thought. This motivation is civil disobedience. This reduces the risk of unjust laws.
B. People who commit civil disobedience still accept responsibility for the crime. I am not promoting breaking the law. That is the aspect of civil disobedience that my opponent will probably bring up. However just concentrating on that is not focusing on the intent of the civil disobedience. It is the intent of civil disobedience that should be emphasized. The Aff position does not put the people above the law and it does not encourage people to break the law because people are still punished for their crime. There is nothing to lose with civil disobedience because if the majority belief is not altered by civil disobedience, justice and order is still maintained. However, civil disobedience increases the chance of progress. If no one challenges a law, then we will never find out if the law is possibly unjust. Henry David Thoreau stated in his essay "Civil Disobedience" stated that, "Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform." It is important to realize that it is the intent of civil disobedience that allows our society to progress and reform unjust laws.
C2 - Many laws are unjust.
A. Laws are subjective. The Neg may say that civil disobedience is based on the opinions of minority groups. There are two major problems with this. First, just because the ideas are that of the minority, that does not mean it is wrong. For example the majority of the people at one time believed that slavery is moral. We know now obviously that it is not. It is the subjective ideas of the minority which persuaded us to realize the immoral ways of slavery. Second, laws which are passed are based on the subjective opinions of the majority, which are not always any more correct than the minority’s opinions. English poet John Dryden wrote "Nor is the people’s judgement always true: The most may err as grossly as the few." I am not saying that democracy is flawed. Democracy is the best way to achieve justice, but in order for democracy to work effectively, the minority must be able to express their opinion. The opinions of the minority are not always right, neither are the opinions of the majority always right. Therefore both sides must receive an equal chance to express their ideas. I again quote Thoreau : "...a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
B. Civil disobedience is a form of protection for minorities. Minority groups are often silenced, even in a democracy. If there is a law that oppresses a minority group, sometimes civil disobedience is the only way to get your point across. An example is the well-known case of Rosa Parks. In that time period, blacks most of the time were silenced. It was illegal then for blacks to sit in the front of the bus. Parks sat at the front of the bus and refused to move. She was arrested. This is an example of how civil disobedience is a form of protection for minorities. After Parks sat at the front of the bus, she was still punished. However, it made people think. The American people finally realized how unjustly the blacks were being treated. If it weren’t for civil disobedience, minority groups would have no protection from unjust laws.
back to LD stuff
Email: kerwinguy@yahoo.com
