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

Alright so, right off the bat, we have no argumentation against the affirmative. So where is that going to go? I can't argue half of the debate already, so this leaves me out on a limb. Right off of that (and classic LD style), you have to vote Affirmative (Pro). I have one problem with his definition of vigilantism. We shouldn't limit it to just punishing criminals; forms of vigilantism can often not even involve criminals, like revoking laws or internet vigilantism. We have to look at just "one taking the law into his own hands", which includes punishing criminals. I accept my opponent's value of Justice, however we have to prefer my definition of giving each his or her due because not only does mine have a source, but because it can actually be measured. We can't measure what is or isn't "moral rightness", so we can't look towards my opponent's definition of justice. To my opponent's criterion of community cohesion, you must prefer mine for two reasons. 1) Governmental Legitimacy actually provides for Community Cohesion. Once you get a properly functioning government, you can increase the cohesion of the people in it. Therefor, my criterion encompasses my opponent's. 2) How do we determine exactly when the community is cohesive? And at what point have we achieved this? Governmental legitimacy, as I provided in case, can be provided for and measured on the plane of this debate. --- Now, on to his contention 1 about unjust laws. You must reject this argument for several reasons. 1) Vigilantes won't want to enforce these unjust laws. Because they belong to the society that they reside and act upon, they're not going to enforce these laws that can be enforced back on them, or even held accountable to. With the pointless laws, like in Florida, they're not enforced for a reason; it's necessary. 2) Vigilantes can never justify violent actions. This happens in two ways. First, if a vigilante is violent, he will then be considered a criminal, in which he's no longer a vigilante. Second, like I already brought up, vigilantes avoid violence because it can be turned around on them. Think of the golden rule. If vigilantes don't want violence upon them, they won't do it to others and therefor, avoid violence altogether. 3) A form of vigilantism is to revoke these laws. For example, in the case of these racist laws, a form of vigilantism is to, in fact, revoke these laws. This is taking the law into one's hands, as per definition. So by justifying vigilantism, we can actually FIX these laws and create more governmental legitimacy within a society, indeed a just action. ---- On to the contenton 2, about retributive punishment. So basically, what my opponent assumes here is that a retributive justice system is the best. 1) Why? My opponent gives absolutely NO reason to prefer this system over other systems of justice. Right off the bat, my opponent is going from nothing to nothing, whereas the Pro side is clearly gaining justice. 2) Vigilantes act to avoid violence Cross apply my previous argument. Because vigilantes don't want violence upon themselves, they won't do it to others. Even if it's emotionally guided, that vigilante will be just as much held accountable as anyone else. 3) Vigilantes check each other Another form of vigilantism is to make sure other vigilantes are doing their job properly. So when one does something wrong, I can check you and remove you from your duties, allowing society to remain stable. --- Contention 3, about "spawning" more vigilantes. Again, my opponent makes the mistake of not backing his claim about "spreading fear in the community. " 1) Vigilantes only promote peace The good that every vigilante wants must be enforced so this claim is false. Vigilantes don't become vigilantes to promote hatred; that's called a criminal. 2) Vigilantes don't want violence. Again, cross apply my arguments previously. 3) More vigilantes=good To the point where say, 99% of citizens are vigilantes, you have two things. First, you have very minimalistic criminal activity, because now everyone is out to stop it. But more importantly, second, you're promoting the idea of peace. Like I stated before, vigilantes enforce laws to promote peace; therefor, more vigilantes = more peace and thus, you have not only great community cohesion, but also provide for the legitimacy of the government. Thank you for the debate!