Affirmative Constructive Analysis
Andrew vs John
Lincoln vs Douglas debate
“Is Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified?”
Format:
Affirmative Constructive – 6 min
Negative cross-examination of affirmative – 3min
Negative constructive – 7min
Affirmative cross-examination of negative – 3min
Affirmative rebuttal – 4min
Negative rebuttal – 6min
Affirmative rebuttal – 3min
Affirmative constructive:
I affirm the resolution that civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified
To clarify this debate, I will define civil disobedience and democracy. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, civil disobedience is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a non-violent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. …show more content…
My thesis is civil disobedience is useful for upholding human rights when a democratic government strays.
Contention 1: Civil disobedience in a democracy is an effective form of protest
Subpoint A: Civil disobedience has played an important part in the shaping of the United States. The United States is a constitutional republic, which is a not a direct democracy but a derivative of one. The Boston Tea Party is one example. It was an act of civil disobedience to protest the oppressive British government. Another example is Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad. Tubman illegally did the moral thing by helping many slaves get to freedom. The Women’s suffrage movement. Thousands of women braved arrest and prison to gain their democratic right of voting. The civil rights movement, the introduction of labor laws and unions, environmental demonstrations, anti-war protests, all these are examples of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been proved time and time again to be effective in the United States, a model for democracy.
Contention 2:
Subpoint B:
I affirm that civil disobedience in a democracy is morally
Lincoln vs Douglas debate
“Is Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified?”
Format:
Affirmative Constructive – 6 min
Negative cross-examination of affirmative – 3min
Negative constructive – 7min
Affirmative cross-examination of negative – 3min
Affirmative rebuttal – 4min
Negative rebuttal – 6min
Affirmative rebuttal – 3min
Affirmative constructive:
I affirm the resolution that civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified
To clarify this debate, I will define civil disobedience and democracy. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, civil disobedience is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a non-violent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. …show more content…
My thesis is civil disobedience is useful for upholding human rights when a democratic government strays.
Contention 1: Civil disobedience in a democracy is an effective form of protest
Subpoint A: Civil disobedience has played an important part in the shaping of the United States. The United States is a constitutional republic, which is a not a direct democracy but a derivative of one. The Boston Tea Party is one example. It was an act of civil disobedience to protest the oppressive British government. Another example is Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad. Tubman illegally did the moral thing by helping many slaves get to freedom. The Women’s suffrage movement. Thousands of women braved arrest and prison to gain their democratic right of voting. The civil rights movement, the introduction of labor laws and unions, environmental demonstrations, anti-war protests, all these are examples of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been proved time and time again to be effective in the United States, a model for democracy.
Contention 2:
Subpoint B:
I affirm that civil disobedience in a democracy is morally