vigilantism is justified when government fails to act

I'll attack the NC, move on to reaffirming the AC. OV1: We're running similar impacts with different warrants. Note that whichever side proves superior logic wins the impacts and thus can effectively link into either value structure, winning the debate. OV2: He argues that "vigilantism erodes the rule of law" but he fails to warrant this, so I'm going to overview his case quickly and knock out all of him impacts from here (i'll move on to each contention individually). I give you the following logical progression: 1) The government has failed to enforce the law, thus a "state of nature" is in place, where rights are not protected etc. We can assume that before the act of vigilantism occurs, there is no law. 2) The vigilante "takes the law into his own hands" by punishing the criminal who violated the law. (note: he acts within the parameters of that law; you can look to my definitions for this, but basically he invokes the pre-existing standard of punishment) 3) By punishing the criminal several impacts follow: 1 - he re-establishes the rule of law by promoting it through his own action 2 - he establishes order within society by protecting against those who seek to erode society. 3 - without this action we exist in the "state of nature" where there is no law; thus the only way to ensure law is to carry it out. as the government is not doing this, the only way to ensure rule of law is through vigilante action. That said, that's a quick overview of his case that easily takes out his impacts and links them back to the affirmative. Now, I'll address his case specifically. ==== Value: Societal Welfare ==== 1) A society cannot be well off if it is unjust, justice precludes societal welfare 2) You need society to protect societal welfare, link into my value structure at that point. ==== Value Criterion: Rule of Law ==== 1) Rule of law is insufficient in upholding societal welfare, insofar as countries like Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany had iron law but obviously society wasn't well off. A better criterion would simply be the protection of law, which is what the affirmative advocates with his criterion. ==== C1: Vigilantism leads to anarchy ==== 1) wait... what? That's ridiculous. Vigilantism prescribes law when there is no law; law is the exact opposite of anarchy. He gives you a flawed analogy of a "noisy car" but that IS NOT WHAT VIGILANTISM IS. This entire contention is based off of a flawed interpretation of vigilantism. As I talk about in my definitions, THE LAW is a pre-existing standard; thus the vigilante is NOT setting fire to random cars but rather enforcing the LAW which is, as he said, "dispassionate and objective." 2) Without vigilantism we erode social order; erosion of social order leads to NO LAW AT ALL. Thus, the affirmative protects society and protects against anarchy, his first contention can be turned in favor of the affirmative. ==== C2: Constitutional Rights ==== 1) Drop this point at face. The resolution doesn't ask us to evaluate the United States, so his "constitution argument" is contextual and specific in a debate that asks us to be nonspecific. 2) Ensuring society is more important than the rights of one who was accused. Moreover, trial by jury is to ensure impartial CONVICTION but we've already established (in my definitions) that the accused is GUILTY so jury is irrelevant. ==== C3: Rule of Law Promotes Justice ==== 1) Again, constitutionality is irrelevant. 2) Also, due process is also irrelevant; the accused is guilty in every circumstance the affirmative is justifying. 3) No, it doesn't do a better job of promoting justice because without linking to my criterion we erode the social foundation for justice in and of itself; without law we have no way to ensure justice, and so social order is always a precursor to justice in society. A disorganized society is free to act on whim, irrationally and capriciously, and the only way one can retrain this is through protecting the order of that society. The affirmative, and vigilantism, protects society. ==== C4: (he calls this C5?) Vigilantism threatens democracy ==== 1) There's no link to his value criterion, this contention can be dropped at face. Neither of us care about democracy in this round, as is obvious by our value structure. ==== A2: Self-Defense ==== 1) He disregards the "Self-defense" point entirely; I argue that with no law we have no way to ensure rights, and so everyone is endangered. In acting to promote law we act to eliminate the state of nature and ensure rights for all, but if we neglect the law and allow this state to thrive then everyone has unlimited potential to be stabbed, shot, robbed, raped, kidnapped, or have their water pipes broken (which is, indeed, a felony! :P) ==== AFFIRMATIVE CASE ==== Now, I wouldn't be doing this if he had specified otherwise, but in the original post he says we're going by strictly LD format. He writes, "aff goes , neg refute case and add case, aff goes refute/continue case,". In Lincoln-Douglas debate, if a point is dropped from one round to the next it can be "extended". An extension means that point is automatically given to the side that extends it. Moreover, YOU CANNOT ATTACK A POINT AFTER IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED. This is going to be key, as he's saying extensions are allowed and to be encouraged, and it means in his next speech he can ONLY ATTACK WHAT I'VE SAID TO HIS CASE, OR REAFFIRM WHAT HE'S SAID TO MINE. Since he doesn't attack anything BUT self-defense, we can extend across ALL of the affirmative points. Some key points are: 1) The definitions I give you of LAW, FAILED TO ENFORCE, and VIGILANTISM. These are key as I use them to rebut his case. As I extended these definitions, all of my attacks on his case that derive from definitions can be carried through: HE CANNOT REBUT THESE. 2) The value structure. In LD debate, nothing matters in the round unless it has to do with value structure. For example, if we both value Martian Rights and his case talks about nuclear war on earth, then no matter how bad nuclear holocaust would be it DOESN'T MATTER IN THE ROUND unless it links to our value of Martian Rights. Since I cleanly extend my value structure, you have to look to my value structure in the round. This means all contentions have to link into it, and this will be important in refuting his case. The following Negative Contentions do not link to the affirmative value structure: CONTENTION TWO CONTENTION FOUR So these can be AUTOMATICALLY discarded. 3) The three conclusions under my value. The first two support the third conclusion which is that actions that maintain social order are more just than actions that may inherently be unjust. For example, if I decapitate a murderer, while it might be unjust because it protects society it is more just than me letting him go free. This cleanly eliminates the following negative contentions: CONTENTION ONE CONTENTION TWO CONTENTION THREE 4) Subpoint "A" of the Major premise of my syllogism, and the minor premise of my syllogism. This is where the affirmative gives you a clear link to social order. If both of these stand the only thing I must prove is subpoint B of my major premise, however, if we look to the warrant I give you he doesn't actually refute it. So because of those two extensions and his incomplete and inadequate refutation of subpoint B we can assume the entire syllogism to be true. Once the syllogism is true, you default affirmative. NOW, those are the only extensions I can make (considering that's all of my case), DO NOT LET HIM ATTACK THESE IN HIS NEXT SPEECH(ES). HE CANNOT DO THIS, IT IS VIOLATING THE RULES OF LD DEBATE (WHICH HE ESTABLISHED IS HOW WE ARE TO DEBATE) All arguments based off of extensions are: 1) Untouchable ( you cannot refute them) 2) Irrefutable (they are true) He can't contest this, it's his framework.