CreateDebate


Debate Info

62
41
YES NO
Debate Score:103
Arguments:78
Total Votes:140
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (46)
 
 NO (32)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11170) pic



Is it ever justifiable for protesters to break the law due to their cause?

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!

When is it allowed or ever?

YES

Side Score: 62
VS.

NO

Side Score: 41
2 points

To secure our unalienable rights comes to mind; "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."--The US Declaration of Independence, 1776

Side: yes
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
1 point

That still doesn't prove that people have to break laws and cause chaos in order to change the government.

Side: No
1 point

Well, overthrowing the government is not just breaking laws, but if failed attempt, you face treason. Luckily under the Constitution, they won't be able to kill you.

Side: yes
2 points

Welcome to America.

That's what makes this place great. Usually the punishment fits the crime. Obstructing traffic can be worth making a point.

If you accept your punishment, then it may be worth your freedom.

Side: yes
2 points

Well, this would depend on the law being violated. Besides, who determines what is just initially?

Side: yes
2 points

Yes. The question is if it is EVER justifiable. And that is a yes. Rosa Parks broke the law. Gandhi broke the law. Both these people were protesting for things that are considered good causes. People who hid Jews from from the Nazis or Jews who stayed in Spain during the Inquisition were breaking the law. So very much a yes.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes it can be (and has been) justified. In fact, if a government becomes to oppressive it is the duty of the people to break past conventional for of interest aggregation and move on to more radical forms. This ensures that a government won't get out of hand; which is liable to happen in a democracy. It worked for the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s-1960s and, it worked for Gandhi.

Side: yes

For the most part, protesters should obey laws that govern protesters and respect those laws because they were granted the right to protest in the first place.

Side: yes
1 point

"For the most part" they should obey laws - actually means your answer to "Is it ever justifiable" would seem to be YES.

Side: yes

Yes, you are correct. Not sure what I was thinking. Maybe accidentally click no.

Side: yes

I think Susan B. Anthony voting when it was considered illegal could definitely be deemed justifiable. Certainly places where local and federal laws seem to disagree would be justifiable places to test - though technically you would be breaking one of them.

People should always remember that they are responsible for their actions - be willing to pay the price. they should not conduct civil disobedience lightly and should know that if they goo too far they are likely to harm their cause.

Side: yes

Yes,Rosa Parks sat down and wouldn't give her seat up on a bus for a white person which was against the law,and her little boycott was a big step in the removal of segregation.There are many different groups who broke the law to make a change or point and there protest changed lives.So yes absoultley

Side: No
1 point

you argue that it is justifiable, but your argument is mis-tagged as no

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, if by breaking the law they aren't hurting anyone and are furthering a just cause, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes breaking the law, standing in what you believe in, makes this country USA.

Supporting Evidence: Scented Rocks (www.scentaroom.com)
Side: yes
1 point

Well if you believe the Constitution then whenever government makes laws that oversteps it's bounds then it is your duty to change that if that requires breaking said law then sure.

Side: yes
1 point

Only if the law is unjust. If the law is reasonable, then I would disagree.

Side: yes
0 points

Civil disobedience is sometimes unavoidable, especially in the name of animal rights. As long as no one is hurt during the process I say GO FOR IT! Set those animals free!!

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6766) Disputed
1 point

Do it is more important for animals to get rights then for the law to be abided by?

Side: No
Liddy(36) Disputed
1 point

When the people are being ignored, and have pleaded till their blue in the face without an answer, or any type of change, then yes.

Side: yes
usps(365) Disputed
0 points

So they can die in the woods and on the roadways because they do not know how to fend for them selves. Death in the woods, death in a lab, its still death.

Side: No
-1 points

yes cause there is no way that you should not break the law

Side: yes
2 points

There is a better way to get heard than running around causing chaos. The people should be able to protest without causing harm to anyone or anything.

Side: No
zproach(252) Disputed
2 points

Civil disobedience doesn't have to be violent or harmful; it doesn't have to be about creating chaos.

Side: yes
brycer2012(1001) Disputed
2 points

Anytime you break the law it's causing chaos, sometimes more than others, but it's always creating chaos.

Side: No

This is America. You have to abide by the majority. If you don't like it, either leave or vote for politicians that will change the laws for you. But don't break the law. There's no need for that. The correct path is always the rule of law. There is always a way to get things done. Sometimes it takes too long but breaking the law in order to expedite your wants is not the way to go.

Side: No
1 point

America became America by people doing just that. If Britain was the majority should we have just did whatever they said? Men were the majority - should women have just shut up? Whites were the majority - should everyone else have just moved to the back?

Side: yes

Wait... wait.... just one minute while I digest what you wrote. Are you saying that people should just break the law in order to get what they want?

Side: No

I do not even consider strikes or most protestations to be justifiable - much less the breaking of a law during the protest. They have no right to hurt anybody when they are not protesting, why should they when they are?

Side: No
freedomrules(33) Disputed
2 points

Excuse me but how are strikes not justifiable?They are protesting generally because they are not being treated fairly,or something is not right.So in truth the people who caused the protest are at fault because if they had been fair or done their job right there never would have been a protest.Breaking of a law is not always violent so don't assume by her saying breaking the law meaning violence.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6766) Disputed
1 point

Depending on which post you are disputing, I do not believe that I implied that all such events were violent. However, one must assume that such a rally will have a greater likelihood of violence than a peaceful 'get-together'.

Also, if the employers are breaking the law, the employees can sue, get the DA to file charges, they can quit, or they can keep on with their merry business and not give a damn.

Side: No
1 point

protests and strikes have been a very successful method of highlighting injustices and changing public perception and policy. and breaking the law does not always hurt anybody.

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6766) Disputed
1 point

The law is there for a reason - we cannot allow protesters to be above the law just because they are fighting for something they believe in.

Side: No
1 point

Protester need the support of the people viewing the protest! if they come off as criminals they have lost the battle. A peaceful protest always wins the hearts and minds of the public.

Side: No
1 point

i think peaceful is better, but sometimes a criminal can be compelling too - see Rosa Parks...

Side: yes
usps(365) Disputed
2 points

Rosa Park was a peaceful protest! she didn't hurt any one or destroy property ( the law was wrong) but it was peaceful.

Side: No

For any protest to be taken seriously you need to be respectable in the way you go about the protest and you need mass support. Breaking the law during your protest is just making it easier for whoever your protesting against and the media to turn you into targets and dismiss what you were protesting for.

Side: No
zproach(252) Disputed
2 points

Go tell this to the Civil Rights movement; it seemed to work for them to gain positive media.

Side: yes
1 point

People who break laws to enforce new ones are hypocritical. Only with respect for the law and proper process can any new law in your favour be worth anything. Rosa Parks and others may have sped up change but look at how the change has resulted? Could it be that the lessons learnt in disobedience of law are now role models for more and more to break the law just because they want to. If education and protest had resulted in change then maybe all the violence that was necessary to uphold the original law would not have resulted allowing better acceptance of new laws and better role modelling for future generations.

Side: No
1 point

OMG STOP TALKING ABOUT OLD CRAP THAT HAPPENED IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN AMERICAWAS NEW AND NO ONE KNEW WTF TO DO! Okay now things protesters should do to keep ppl from hating them dont be an ass hole: protesting out side of churches about that religion becuase at the same time ur exersizing ur rights ur taking away alot of other ppl's and in the consti. it says basicly majority rules so if u mess with other ppls rights while protesting ur not cool at all

Side: No
-1 points

it is corny and who would want to have any thing like that old thing

Side: yes