CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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
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.
Overthrowing the government isn't against the law in America. In fact, you quoted the constitution "...That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!!
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.
So that the animals can live the life that they were suppose to live without being poked, prodded, tortured, maimed, etc. in the name of science. So that we can progress as a civilization by using non-animal testing methods, yes.
No, stop using them for the benefit of man! Stop exploiting them, stop torturing them, stop!! They deserve life, not death. They deserve to live an existence without the constant fear, isolation, confinement that they are subjected to. Do you understand what I am trying to say now? Because I don't know how much clearer I can get than that. If not, try reading comprehension 101.
She broke the law willingly to make a point... and she got arrested and put in jail and she didn't fight it... there was never a moment when order was out of line.
She didn't break any law she just didnt get up ther was no law against it she didn't mean to protest either it just ended up being that way she sat down in the black section to many white ppl got on the bus they wanted her to move she saud no they arrested her but if she hadn't been moraly right like if it had been over the dumb stuff going on today SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM if she was just being lazy and didnt wanna get up SHE WOULD HAV BEEN A PROBLEM so protesters now a days are using there rights to protest alittle to much
I agree with the definition, but if you put yourself into the shoes of the people trying to get around in Montgomery, Alabama 1955, wouldn't it be chaotic with people walking through the middle of the streets?
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.
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?
WTF are you talking about? We did NOT break the law when we declared our independence from England. But I await your next attempt at twisting stuff around ;)
Actually, the founding fathers did brake English law by declaring our independence; Anyone who signed the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason, and the punishment for treason was death. So, if any of those who would have survived through the war, they would have been hung by death for treason.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson declares all the atrocities that King George committed onto the people.
In the final sentence, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
In other words, they were risking everything, and they knew it.
Good. Then protesters should declare their independence and get the hell out of our country. They can go to France for all I care. That's full of libs ;)
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?
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.
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.
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.
the law is there because a majority of lawmakers passed it - not always because it is right. breaking the law also doesn't mean they are above it - they should be willing to pay the price for their crimes even if they are justifiable.
so what Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi and Jesus all did by disobeying unjust laws would not only be wrong but not even justifiable??
person with placard is not the only definition of a protester...
in a couple of the cases they definitely were punished - Ghandi, Jesus, King
Anthony was convicted and sentenced to a fine that she never paid
and Parks was convicted and sentenced to a fine and during her appeal the Supreme Court ruled on a similar case overturning the law in Alabama that she broke
the contentious word is "justifiable" which is just that something is capable of being defended as the just thing to do. should they expect not to have punishment, no. Can peacefully not succumbing to an unjust law and appealing to the Supreme Court be defended as just - i think so.
You do realize that the term 'protest' has multiple definitions and connotations?
Just because they are expressing their dissent does not mean that they can break the law. Their dissent is irrelevant. If we believe it justifiable for them to break the law, then we are but one step closer to anarchy.
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.
You are still commenting on the fact I said "A peaceful protest always wins the hearts and minds of the public." Rosa Parks had a peaceful protest and we won!
I'm saying all protest must be peaceful! or the protesters will lose the support of the community...whose support they are seeking! read my first post!
Rosa Parks conducted a peaceful protest! and succeeded! when you start throwing rocks and turning over cars you have lost the battle.
Is it ever justifiable for protesters to break the law due to their cause?
peaceful or not she broke the law!!! if you want to answer the question of whether protest should be peaceful, find or create that debate - because this isn't it.
that's the last repeat i will give you - after that, you either don't understand English (sorry to be harsh but some people on here don't), or how the site works, or are just repeating silliness to get points.
You can't say Rosa Parks did the right thing and answer No to the topic of this debate.
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.
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.
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
