* Moral force protest has a greater chance to succeed that physical force protest. Discuss in relation to our contemporary world.

In the modern world today, there is an immense diversity of global issues which are constantly being dealt with. Moral force protest as well as physical force protest are used, in hope of achieving a purpose and proving a point. For both of these acts of protest, there must be a substantial amount of facts and evidences backing it up. Both protests, no matter how it’s done, are in some way seeking for the support of the ‘leaders’, most of the time, the ‘leaders’ being the government.
Moral force protest involves logical convincing speeches which are fighting for a cause within the boundaries of law. It’s possible to legally get enough support for a cause and eventually win by never once using any sort of violence. In some cases, hunger strikes by the ‘victims’ are also done. Aside from well constructed speeches and hunger strikes, the refusal to obey certain laws and the passive resistance, that is, resisting to incoming violence usually from the government, are other ways to morally protest without any physical violence. Sometimes due to the refusal to abide to certain laws the supporters may find abusive, the moral force protest supporters might find themselves confronting the law, and perhaps even acting illegally. In recent years, certain countries which hadn\'t previously given women the right to vote changed their decision by receiving strong moral force protest; this right was gained, and nowadays in those countries women possess the right to vote. Physical force wasn’t in any way used in this case.
The opposing way to support some strong cause can be through physical force protests. This involves violent protests which may harm people purposely. Destructive attitude from the people supporting a cause by using physical force is indeed very common. In most cases violence is used in hope of getting attention and media publicity. Physical force protest, has a very distinctive difference from moral force protest; one of the most important ones being that, by violence, these supporters are terrorising the general public, and trying to get the government to recognise their terrorism, and give in. Moral force protest is not even remotely linked with terrorism.
Not in any way, do the supporters practising moral force protest adapt to terrorism like do these physical force supporters. By terrorising the general public and the government itself, these supporters think they’ll create such an intolerable situation that the government will give in to their extreme and sometimes unnecessary violence. Now, if any government is prepared to give in their monopoly of violence over to a group supporting an intelligent and important cause through physical force protest, the situation is most likely to deteriorate rapidly. The government’s monopoly of violence should constantly remain intact, under no circumstance should it be put at risk, no matter how threatening a situation they are facing. Violence should remain their monopoly.
A few examples of physical force protest can be seen in recent IRA bombings; the purpose of the IRA being to gain independence for Northern Ireland from Britain. So far, these bombings have proved to be counter productive, nevertheless, the IRA seem to be relentless. Therefore they continue to terrorise society and sometimes wound or even kill innocent people.
Although not impossible to answer, the issue of whether which protest is more successful, moral or physical, it is a very complex and contradiction filled subject to discuss and come to a logical and correct conclusion to. The acceptance of either form of protest can be in many ways extremely contradictory. Due to the sea of information that surrounds this issue, many valid arguments can be cleverly twisted in order to support or go against either side. While some people may see their own argument as being absolutely valid and completely true in favour of moral protest force, someone else can easily turn around that same argument and use it against moral force protest, and in favour of physical force protest, still seeing the argument and reasons as a definite truth. After all, truth is the real state of things, according to each individual.
A reasonable speech clearly justifying any reasons backing up a