Most activists not all activists.

You just say he's making a distinction b/w scrupulously and non-scrupulously non violent
And that most are scrupulously
And maybe scrupulously is just a more intense form of it or w/e, like it's a hunger strike or who knows

Neg. Weighing Mechanism:

It can lead to many more being broken because people will see that it's okay to break this one law and it's a slippery slope
because people will keep pushing it and eventually it may lead to violence and anarchy which also means the magnitude is
greater because anarchy is worse than every single law being completely moral.
Brunner:
how he says theres no justice with anarchy and so we need law through a single agent to achieve justice
and through justice we achieve morality
or something like that
she said just keep extending that
because the rule of law determines whether civil disobedience is moral according to him
And why is that a good argument to win?
(In other words, what is the impact of extending that argument)
because it shows that preserving the rule of law is the most important thing to the debate
because without the rule of law you can't have morality
Yep. Good
so you should prioritize the rule of law over whatever the aff's value criterion is
Locke:
His point is that they'd all be dead w/out authority of the leviathan
So it's best for them to submit to its authority anyway
Laws can be unjust:
"I would say extend the Social Contract (Locke) cards to say that every group gives up some absolute liberty in order to gain
social protection; this means that in the eyes of some people, laws will ALWAYS be unjust, even when it is fair for the
majority. Then I'd extend the idea that the ROL (Rule of Law) still matters because people are obligated to follow rules to
prevent anarchy. And then I'd extend the ACLU card to say that legal channels are better."