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

first id like to apologize to my opponent seeing its not fair for me to not post asap but some things came up and ive been really Busy, so i hope opponent understands and now id like to continue with the debate. now to give the spectators and my opponent a breif roadmap of how i will be taking this rebuttal. first i will attack my opponents case, than move on to Building mine up than show why people should vote an affirm resolution. now my opponent likes to use the value of societal progression with the criterion of social revolution. my opponent is advocating that every step forward society makes is a step towards morality, justice, etc, not giving any legitimate reasoning nor real life examples. nah as the resolution states that "Vigilantism is JUSTIFIED when the government has FAILED TO ENFORCE THE LAW" now my opponents value falls because he is agreeing that whether or not the government fails to enforce the law we are taking steps forward in society. now as the objective of the negative is too show how vigilantism is not a justifiable cause when the government does not uphold the law. in the first problem being solved by his value he is stating that when the government fails we are still taking a step forward in "Justice" and morality. is it moral or just when a man escapes prison due to the faulty judicial system, or a loophole? we are not taking a step forward in a just or moral way. i agree with his second problem for his value, being that justified vigilantism would help to solve that crisis when the government can not. Now my opponents value of social revolution uses the term that it is neccessary for society to progress, with that in mind i would like to move back to his value when i stated society can not progress with a faulty system that is letting criminals escape jail or anything else because of the government failing to enforce the law. in order to progress we need to make Justice is met where justice is due. without Justice we would resort to a form of anarchy where the government exists but Justice is not being uphelp in any way. with that said my opponents criterion and value falls. my opponents first contention doesnt apply to the resolution and id like to refer to my second observation which is the definition of a vigilantism and it states.. Classic vigilantes, according to the American University Law Review: 1.are members of an organized committee 2.are established members of a community 3.proceed with definite goals, not with the intension of random violence 4.act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system id also like to refer back to my first observation which is.. Observation 1) as stated in the resolution, the government is not upholding the law. Therefore, said vigilante is upholding and enforcing the law in a justified way. in the resolution it is stating that the vigilante is upholding the law when the government has failed to, they are not committing treasons, yes they are committing assassinations but, only when they are needed as a last resort because of the government failing to enforce the law. so my opponents first contention can not be applied to the resolution unless he can prove otherwise and give real world examples. i will agree with my opponent on his second contention to a certain extent, as it furthers my arguement and strengthens it. as we can see throughout history revolution was needed, and id like to bring up the american revolution, and a specific vigilante group from the boston tea party, the sons of liberty took it upon themselves, acting as a last resort and acted with deffinte goals, without the intention of violence dumped the tea over the ship into the water. that act of vigilantism eventually helped with the process of peace, with the british passing the conciliatory resolution. as my opponent advocates that we can not have vigilantism in orde to have revolutions, and as i have just proven vigilantism helped in a revolution. now onto my case. my opponent says my criterion can be ignore because its impossible for my to link it with my value. my value of justice is the greatest value because vigilantism is promoting justice when the government doesn't. my criterion of John Rawls "well ordered society" is upholding my value because in order to have a well ordered society we need to exert justice where justice is needed, and when the government cant uphold justice, and as a last resort without a random means of violence, vigilantism is justifiable. my criterion can be acheived when there is justice whether by the government or by vigilantism. and my opponent states that my criterion supplies the ideal that the society in question is faulty, i will agree with this but i do offer a way to solve this delima and that is vigilantism as the resolution advocates. for my first contention im not advocating that the government sucks i am advocating that vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. i give the ideal of social contract and i state that when the government breaks this social contract vigilantism should be allowable to serve justice. and again i do agree that revolution is good, and i give a real life example of how vigilantism effectively "progressed" that revolution. my opponent is twisting my arguements to a term that i didnt mean to put them, and as i have proven and shown that they are all advocating justice when the government failed to enforce the law. id like to go over the role of the negative which is too prove how vigilantism is not justified. my opponent did not legitimatly show how vigilantism is not justfiable, he gave no real life examples therefor his case is faulty and can be dropped. ive shown how vigilantism is justified and what happens when justice is not uphelp by the government. ive also shown how my opponents case falls and can not be legit in this debate, which is why you should affirm the resolution.