resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Starting at the top of the aff, on Justice: 1. I agree that police don't always end up failing to enforce the law; however, a. Replacing an imperfect justice system with unchecked vigilantism also won't achieve justice. b. Understand that a government's failure doesn't open up the door to any self-righteous citizen who wants to try their hand at playing policeman: he never directly responds to the fact that, one failure to enforce one law doesn't destabilize the entire government; no law enforcement system will ever be 100% perfect, but the aff can't use that as a justification to let ordinary citizens have free reign to punish criminals as they see fit (as stated in the aff's definition). 2. Firstly, whoa: the only example the aff provides of vigilantism is the American Revolution. a. The aff is trying to redefine vigilantism; the definition we both agreed upon: "The act of a citizen who takes the law into his/her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals." We obviously aren't talking about a countrywide rebellion, we're talking about a single citizen going out, after a crime has happened, and apprehending/punishing this criminal for his/her illegal activity. b. Also, my opponent says, verbatim, that "Vigilantism can even be a group of civilians who formed their own government and pursue their duties to uphold human rights." By the aff's admission, this is a government enforcing the law, not vigilantes, and the aff has stepped outside the resolution. Simply put, if vigilantes 'form a government', then they are no longer vigilantes, and can't be taken into account. 3. His whole argument is that we must protect rights, and people therefore protect themselves. a. Again, merely look to the fact that vigilantism happens after the crime is committed, therefore it cannot be self-defense, but as I said in my 1st ctn, it is purely vengeance. On MPHR: 1. My opponent starts off describing the justice system. a. Cross-apply the argument that the aff is replacing an imperfect system with a worse system. b. He just says the death penalty is unjust, never proving why, yet in the same breath, suggests that vigilantes kill are their victims; so, my opponent is advocating the manipulation of fear and perpetuation of excessive violence to cut down on crime. This will definitely rock the flow for you. 2. "countered..." a. He never refutes that MPHR is a sickeningly consequential criterion; thus, you see that Synderesis is superior. b. As my opponent advocates manipulation of criminals' fear and the use of violence, obviously vigilantism fails the Synderesis test. On ctn I: 1. He drops this argument. a. He never proves that a single failure is equivalent to the destabilization of the whole system, thus his argument about a government losing legitimacy, obligation, and government dissolution are entirely fallacious. 2. He reiterates the vigilante government. a. If vigilantes form a government, they are no longer vigilantes acting, but rather a government enforcing the law. b. He ignores the Locke quote from Sec. 220 explaining that people are allowed to mold themselves a more capable government; understand that while this is justified, taking the law into one's own hands is not justified. c. Vigilantes, by definition, are single citizens; even if they acted as a group, they would be acting under a single mindset, giving way to a vengeful, violent mob mentality. On ctn II: 1. He discusses self-defense. a. I was also discussing the people; what I'm saying is that, since vigilantism happens after a crime is committed, that one cannot protect himself from something that has already happened; thus, vigilantism is not self-defense, but is simply revenge for the wrongs committed. b. He doesn't respond to the contradiction that, he says a legitimate government must uphold the people's right of self-defense, but that, first, he claims the government is dissolved, and second, that if a legitimate government were in place, people would probably not need to exercise the right of self-defense. On ctn III: 1. "lack of obligation" a. A government's MAIN obligation is to protect its people; and, the government hasn't just gone away after one failure, as that doesn't render a government entirely helpless; obviously, we can't allow vigilantes to blur the line between state and citizen responsibility, or the government will never be able to effectively enforce the law. b. He never responds to the fact that vigilantes will also encourage the government to shirk its responsibilities by providing a sort of 'safety net'; if the government believes it has no obligation, then obviously it will fail its responsibilities, and that's what the aff is advocating. 2. "countered..." a. He never counters that society will become reliant on the false 'justice' of vigilantes, and will thus depend on the use of bias and excessive violence to "perpetuate a cycle of impunity", as my ctn III evidence points out. Moving to the negative, on Justice and Synderesis: 1. My opponent fails to attack either of these. a. Plato's Justice, everyone performing their natural duty in society, not only ensures what each is due, but in that, promises a far more functional society. b. Synderesis is the better weighing standard, as it looks at intents, methods, and effects, and furthermore, it ensures that the aff cannot ignore the excessive violence and biased intentions. He tries to attack all three ctns at once, so I will have to address these in the same way; On ctns I, II, and III: 1. He discusses the flaws of the justice system. a. A single government failure doesn't render the government incapable of enforcing laws: Plato's Justice requires that a designated entity be around to do so, in this case, law enforcement; if the government is unsatisfactory, then merely change it. b. Vigilantism is not self-defense; it happens after the crime is committed, and is therefore not protection, but vengeance. c. The aff assumes that if a government fails to enforce a law, that it must be corrupt; by my opponent's logic, since no government is 100% effective, that every government that fails, even once, is corrupt; obviously, flawed logic. d. The aff is committing quite a fallacy: he's essentially saying 'Because the government fails to protect human rights, and vigilantes are acting now, they must be protecting human rights.' No causal link here. Government fails =/= vigilantes succeed. 2. Rodney King a. If we see how badly bias clouds the minds of trained law enforcement, then the horrors of bias in the unchecked, untrained vigilante will be far worse. 3. American Revolution a. Again, vigilantes forming a government means that they are no longer vigilantes, thus are outside of the resolution. b. Vigilantism and rebellion are quite different; vigilantism is a response to a crime, rebellion is a response to repeated oppression by a government. c. Vigilantes don't act as a group; by definition, vigilantism is the action of an individual citizen; please, don't let the aff redefine the term mid-round. d. Fun fact - the English government was trying to enforce its laws, and American Revolutionaries wouldn't let that happen. 4. Self-defense a. As I've said, vigilantism happens after the crime, thus it isn't defense, but revenge (as vigilantes apprehend and punish these criminals themselves; no trial, no impartiality, no checks) b. No government is going to work 100% of the time, but that doesn't automatically open the door to whoever wants to give it a try; the aff never realizes that a single failure by the government doesn't erase the obligation entirely, as the aff wants you to believe; my 3rd ctn explains that, with this mentality, the government will fail in the future by simply shirking existing obligations while society relies on unchecked bias and violence.