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

So we meet again Mr. Cumbee. To be honest, I couldn't wait to debate my biggest rival once again. Well, good luck to you sir, not just in this round, but also in the rest of the tournament. Let the fun begin... It's the biggest test of the semester. The grade on this test will either make you or break you. You reach a problem that you don't know. A little bit of help from your friend that actually studied would be extremely helpful right now. Well the same thing can be said for the government. The government is basically just taking a test, solving the problem of crime. Since nobody is perfect, we all need a little help sometime. So when the government has to skip over the problem that it doesn't know, why not let your friend give you a little help? Vigilantism is the government's friend that is helping out on the test. Because I believe that everyone needs a little help here and there, I stand in strong affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. I will first begin with a few definitions. Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and/or punishing suspected criminals. (Black's Law Dictionary) Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. (Merriam-Webster Online) For any other definitions required by my opponent, I reserve the right to clarify. My value for this round will be that of Justice. Justice must be considered the paramount value in this round as we are talking about the Justice System in any society. If that system fails, meaning that Justice isn't upheld, then we can only achieve negative results. Only when the system is upheld, ultimately meaning that Justice is upheld, can we achieve positive consequences. I will be supporting my value with my criterion of just simply taking action. If the government has already failed in its duty to uphold the law, then how is justice suppose to be achieved? People need to take action when nothing is accomplished by the government. When nothing is done, then more and more criminals believe that they can get away with murder, so to speak. By doing nothing, it's just attracting more crime. When people take matters into their own hands, then something is at least being done to uphold the law and criminals don't just walk away clean and free. Contention 1 – Look at the most famous vigilante ever, Batman The government in Gotham is failing constantly. The city is falling into almost complete corruption. Criminals are running everything, even the Justice System. So what's to be done? The caped crusader is the only chance for Gotham to be brought into a new era. Harvey Dent, the "White Knight," has fallen to the dark side thanks to the Joker. Rachel Dawes, before she died, could only do so much. Commissioner Gordon is surrounded by traders. One man had both the tools and skills that would enable him to do something about the crime that was running rampant in the city. Now, although the amount of corruption in the city and the perfect vigilante are both extremes in this one situation, people should be able to do something about the smaller problems that we face today. We may not have a Joker, Two-Face or even Riddler that is trying to take down our lives on a daily basis, but we do have murders, rapists and thieves that are hurting society. Something must be done to prevent the factions from becoming as powerful as in Gotham, and if the government can't do it, then the people should do something. Contention 2 – Vigilantism will work According to the definition provided earlier, a vigilante only takes the law into their hands, but doesn't change the laws or ignore them. The only difference between vigilantism and the regular system is who carries it out. If a "vigilante" breaks the law themselves or over punishes someone, then they can no longer be considered a vigilante, rather they are a rogue individual. Seeing as we are only looking to the resolution as a problem of enforcement, rather than an illegitimate government, vigilantism is only meant to fight the poor enforcement habits. If there are any attacks that talk about the government being unfair in nature, then those are completely off topic and we must steer clear of those problems. The only thing that is even remotely against the government is who is to enforce the law. Once the government fails, then it is a person's right to self preservation in the form of vigilantism. Since I have proven that Vigilantism is an effective method to prevent crime and is the only means to achieve any positive consequences, mainly Justice, we can only look to the Affirmative side of the resolution to take actions and fight for what is good in the world. So whether it be Batman fighting the crime of Gotham or just your smart friend helping you on a test, we must look to vigilantism as a method of achieving desired results. Thank you and I will await your response