Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to uphold the law.

"My opponent openly states that 'If one side of the agreement is broken, then the other side is no longer obligated to hold up its end of the contract.'. If this is the case then he is advocating that citizens take the law into their own hands. But if citizens are A) Under-qualified, B) Overly violent or C) not fully aware of the situation this could have dire consequences." There are possible consequences for vigilantes, as my opponent has said. But these same consequences can be applied to the government. The government is usually less likely to fall to one of these consequences, but a competent vigilante is just as unlikely as an effective government to not fall to one of these consequences. Simply because there may be consequences if vigilantism is not handled properly does not mean that vigilantism is not justified. This is a modified version of an appeal to consequences; in essence, the consequences are irrelevant. It does not completely apply, as an appeal to consequences deals with truth statements, but it is the same general idea. To make my point clearer, I will put it in the perspective of an example. "For example if Joe Brown our vigilante attempts to apprehend a dangerous criminal after the government fails to, due to lack of resources, but he is under qualified he may only succeed in getting in the way of a more competent enforcer and getting injured himself." Joe may be incompetent, but it is not about the outcome, at least at first: the government has failed to uphold the law, so Joe is taking over. This is justified because the law must be upheld, and the government has failed. If Joe also fails, that is a different point entirely. But according to this example, there is a more competent enforcer out there. This enforcer is not the government, who has failed to uphold the law; so it must be another, more competent vigilante. Therefore, at least within this example, vigilantes are competent at upholding the law (not all vigilantes, but vigilantes in general). "[My opponent] fails to take into account situations when the government does not have the resources available to enforce the law... There are also instances in which the society breaches the social contract first so that the government cant enforce the law." In these situations, the government has still failed to uphold the law, it's just for different reasons. If society broke its end first, this changes nothing in terms of vigilantism. It does not matter who broke the social contract; all that matters is that it is broken. The original action of breaking the social contract may have been unjustified, but after that, vigilantism becomes justified. My second contention still applies, but only in cases when laws directly or indirectly protect people's fundamental rights. Most laws do; this is the primary purpose of the law. When laws do not protect people's rights, they have failed. That is a separate point, though. My second contention does not apply for all laws, but does apply for most laws. From the perspective of the resolution, my second contention argues that vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to uphold the law given that the law protects people's rights, which is most or even nearly all of the time. "His third contention is that vigilantism is necessary to withhold society. Now my opponent states that with incompetent governments communities fall into chaos. This is not always the case. A great example of this is the rule of Saddam Hussein. He was the leader of an incompetent government however instead of collapsing into chaos the community just lived in fear. Also when vigilantes enforce unjust laws they are not protecting people fundamental rights." My opponent makes a good point, in that an incompetent government does not always lead to chaos. But I implicitly take this into account in my contention: "Why live in fear under the reign of a worthless government?" I did not go much into it though. My opponent has strengthened my case by bringing up the example of Saddam Hussein. Hussein had not strictly failed to uphold the law; he was the law. But that aside, if the government has failed to uphold the law and this causes the citizens to live in fear, then vigilantism is justifiable. Citizens should not be living in fear of their government. See the part of my third contention about vigilantes inspiring hope. People need to feel hope: if they live in fear all the time then morale is lower, people are unhappier, and society overall is less productive. I will wait for my opponent to respond to my rebuttal to his case. I look forward to his response. Resources Purpose of the law: http://www.ripit4me.org... Iraqi legal system: http://law.cua.edu...