Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

If vigilantism is the only option left with the interpretation that you have, then where does the debate set in? THERE WOULDN'T BE ONE! For this reason I ask the many judges that read this debate, to realize taht my opponent is trying to skew information in order to give himself the upper hand. The resolution is not talking about anarchy, it is speaking of instances when the law wasn't enforced! Now speaking of enstances when the government wasn't there! I'd like to point out the fact that my opponent says "we are debating a world that doesn't exhist." Clearly he is trying to make some fairy tale world wit this resolution opposed to thinking rationally about this whole thing and applying it to everyday life. 1) Although my baby brother, little cousins, and every other 5-10 year old in america would like to disagree. Batman, Spiderman, Superman, and every other self appointed crime avenger with the last name of man, DOES NOT exist. The real life vigilantes leave citizens dehumanies, the autonomy of communities and societies undermined and disrespected, and they infringe upon citizen rights. The idea of vigilante justice is quite amusing. The idea that a murdering, thieving, anger management needing abusive citizen decides that someone else has gone too far and needs to be punished by them because they somehow feel that they are more just than the government, is morally reprehensible. What is the definition of irony again.... You speak of me not offering a value and no criterion, and then saying since I don't, then your value and VC is the only one that can be accepted. But this is false, not because I actually do offer one (Negation side doesn't need to because the burden falls on aff not neg), but because yours does not stand and is not acceptable. You might as well not have one yourself, seeing as how the don't uphld your case. If you know and realize that the NEG doesn't need a value, why did you feel it necessary to call out the fact that I didn't have one? Didn't think I was going to come back with an argument for it? 2 & 3) You are becoming quite contradictory! You are saying with number 3 that the government is NOT present and that there is a state of anarchy (confusing existance without rule or government). But then with number 2 you have stated that vigilantism will blow up and then take over the government [...] Which is true? That there is no government, or that there is? Because you do not know for sure, I'll answer for you, there is a government present. The very fact that it has failed, proves that IT IS NOT ONLY THERE, BUT THAT IT IS TRYING TO FIX THINGS ( It has failed, meaning that it has tried already and is trying) -You have failed to justify vigilantism being an attempt to govern people without their consent (which I provided was an injustice in the quoted part of the declaration of independance that I provided above). -You have failed to address why the democratic republic we are in deems vigilantism illegal irresponsible, unjust, and an unwarranted infringement if it benefitial. -And you have failed to prove to me that you are debating real life opposed to the fairytale world you're speaking of. Because of these main voting issues, I strongly urge a CON vote in today's debate. Thank you The resolution is negated