Work was crazy slow this afternoon and somehow we got on the topic of protests.  A few guys said that peaceful protests are more effective, but couples others said militant protests are the way to go if you were to protest.  I can see both sides.

Peaceful protests are good, usually get large number of people and a generally positive image from the media.

Militant protesters are few in numbers but have some balls.  They are general portrayed as extremists or crazy people.

Which do you thinks works better, the peaceful way or militant way?

Whoa, you are asking the wrong people!

If I were a protestor, I would realize being "militiant" in the sense of snarling traffic, vandalizing private property or diverting police and fire departments from regular service to the community, would be counterproductive and alienating.

Real, hard core violent and destructive militiant behavior, like sabotaging military equipment, attacking political leadership or logistic links might be effective.  It affects the actual organizations involved with what you're protesting.  The stakes and consequences of doing so are enormous (i.e., treason), and the jackasses who protest generally dont believe strongly enough to sacrifice or go that far.

Good question.

I think the peaceful way- nobody gets hurt, and the target will respect you for not causing any damage. However, there is a chance the peaceful way may be viewed as "softness". They need to protest frequently to get their point across.