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

From my opponent's Case: "He (or she) says that it is impossible for me to win this debate, but apparently everything is possible in the "LD vacuum" so I will leave that for voters to decide." My Response: The LD vacuum is the place where the hypothetical situations presented by debaters take place. In order to win an LD debate, on the other hand, on must present a VP and a C. none of this has any affect, of course, because the LD debating style has been dropped. The VPs and Cs presented by both debaters are now completely irrelevant and should not affect the result of the voting. From my opponent's Case: "I will meekly withdraw my definition of vigilantism from the debate." My Response: We must now look solely to my definitions. "Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason." From my opponent's Case: "My point stands that if a citizen takes the law into their own hands they do so without legal reason. The law is to be enforced by law enforcement officials, not you and me. My opponent seems to have completely ignored this central part of my argument as well as the issue of "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to punishing suspects. I would have appreciated it if he had spent more time responding to my actual argument rather than castigating me for my ignorance of LD and proclaiming that I cannot win." My Response: I merely stated that my opponent doesn't define "legal reason" and "legal authority". The two phrases can be interpreted in a variety of ways. This makes his or her argument abusive. Again, whatever I stated on LD should not be held to great value since the style has been dropped. I only stated that if we were to assume that we were working in a hypothetical place, such statements as "innocent until proven guilty" could be nonexistent. My burden was to prove that vigilantism is justified in one occasion to prove that it is justified. In a situation where the government does not recognize self protection, vigilantism is justified. Therefore, I already won. This is one of the key reasons to vote AFF. From my opponent's Case: (paraphrasing) my opponent challenges to explain why we should make the distinction between Vigilante/Vigilantism and Law/The Law. My response: Vigilantism is the socio-politically correct term. Vigilante can simply mean "Observer" or "Watchmen" as its etymology states. "Law", on the other hand, implies a lesser value than "The Law" To my arguments on the LD vacuum(no longer looked to), my opponent states the following: "I admit I don't fully understand the idea of debating in a space where anything is possible, does this mean it is equally possible that anyone performing an act of vigilantism will spontaneously combust or turn into a pink blancmange? I hope not." My response: By its nature and definition, absolutely :) To my first contention, there is a lot of jargon and LD stuff. It was written only to suit the LD style, which, again, has been dropped. I only ask for understanding and flexibility on the voter's part to understand the special circumstances. To answer the questions presented by my opponent Is he saying that vigilantism is ONLY justified if it as an act of self-defense? Absolutely not. But just by proving it in this instance I will successfully carry out my burden. If he is arguing that SELF-DEFENSE is legally justified why did he not say so to begin with? No. In instances where self defense is not legal, vigilantism steps in. Also how can self-defense be LEGALLY justified if it has been declared ILLEGAL? To this point, I must admit that I failed. I assumed the following point would go without saying: A LEGITIMATE LAW ISN'T NECCESARILY MORLLY JUST. I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT: Prove that the Jim Crow laws and black segregation laws were morally just or that they weren't legitimate laws. Once again my opponent seems to be contradicting himself. But maybe that's allowed in LD debate? If "every situation is fully possible" does that mean contradictory statements can both be true? My opponent says that I need "to present arguments in this order: 1. The argument 2. Proof 3. Why the argument is relevant to the case" "my opponent argues that vigilantism occurs more often in the larges social classes, and that vigilantes aren't necessarily going to be altruistic. Firstly, I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT TO PRESENT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT." From my opponent's Case "1. My argument is stated above. Thanks for that. 2. For proof look at high profile cases like Bernhard Goetz, the lynchings you referred to and all the other lynchings in history. 3. For me lynching is the most obvious example of vigilantism and the best explanation for why it should not be justified." My Response: LYNCHINGS ARE NOT A FORM OF VIGILANTISM! I order for an act to be considered vigilantism, the act would have to be close to parallel to what the government would have done (look at my definition). Can you legitimately claim that in a court of law, people would have been killed for their race? My opponent answered my challenge with the following responses: "1. Nothing does. I never said or implied that they were. Neither officials or vigilantes are necessarily altruistic. What judges, police officers etc. do have,that vigilantes don't is the authority of the law, and to apply my opponents own definition; only such officials can have "sufficient legal reason" to enforce the law, apprehend or punish criminals. 2. As we agree that they are not more altruistic do I really have to prove it? 3. This argument is only relevant to my opponent's irrelevant question, it is not relevant to the case." To respond to his responses: 1. Is this "legal reason" always just? 2. No, I am fully satisfied by your incomplete answer. 3. Let us leave that to be deemed by the voters. To address my opponents last points: "Taking the law into your own hands is not legally justified." Just because a law states something, doesn't make it just automatically. "Self-defense and vigilantism are distinct whether self-defense is legal or illegal." Not in a case where it is not sanctioned by the government. If we assume that battery is illegal but self-defense isn't, the situation both fulfils the conditions for vigilantism and proves it morally just. "If self-defense was illegal then like vigilantism it could not be justified." Legal authority is not what justifies something in all cases. As humanity has learned, justification can and usually comes through the opinion of the majority. However, since the debate is based on legal reason I present the following arguments: 1. Not all laws are expected to be followed (example: anti-lynching laws) 2. Laws will always contradict each other (this is why we have court cases on constitutional debates, among others) 3. Full following of the law is not possible. We must look to the lesser of two evils. "Only those with the authority of the law or (The Law) are legally justified to enforce it." No! Why do you think we have something called the court of law and civil lawsuits? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the Law so it is not legally justifiable to be "punishing suspected criminals." This is not applicable everywhere, especially in hypothetical cases. Where is it stated that the government implied in the resolution would follow this model? As voters, you have the responsibility to take into account the special circumstances of the debate. Reasons to Vote AFF 1. My opponent fails to defend his case adequately or as well as I do. 2. My arguments are more convincing. 3. I successfully carried out my burden. 4. I won more arguments. AWESOME DEBATE Thanks for reading and debating