Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

NEG Lets start with the criterion, starting with the two defenses he gives. 1) My opponent makes the assertion that we can't affirm because vigilantism may fail. However this is ridiculous, we can't say something is bad because they chances for success aren't perfect. Yes I will admit, vigilantism may not work. But what if it does? in my opponents world, we shouldn't even try. My opponent assumes vigilantism will always fail, and that is the flaw in his argumentation. Yes there are risks, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a justifiable idea. 2) Revolution and vigilantism are not mutually exclusive. With vigilantism the revolution works twofold. We fix or overthrow the existing government while providing for the public security at the same time. This makes the transition smoother as we do not have a period like that after the American revolution in which the colonies needed to form together, to come up with new laws and their own police forces. The vigilantes would bridge that gap allowing the rule of law to still reign during this transition. C1., If we look at my opponents given definition of revolution, it does not imply the new government will by a better or more legitimate government. But he justifies this. Why? because my opponent is taking a leap of faith that revolution will be successful, an unsuccessful revolution can have massive consequences to increased oppression of the revolutionaries to massive executions. But yet the people, in their time of distress forgot these possible consequences in order to preserve themselves. Revolution may replace a government, but as I show in my C2 vigilantism may reform an already existing government as well as provide for the common security. But here, he denies the logic in such a leap of faith that he himself takes. He even goes as far as to say "the possibility is not beneficial to society." Great. It may not be perfect, but we can't expect anything to be. Just because there is a possibility to harm does not mean we aren't justified in doing it. For example, say I want to get my tonsils removed because they are getting inflamed frequently. I would be justified in proceeding with the operation even though there is a "possibility" I could get an infection that could quickly spread and kill me. Furthermore my opponent seems to have missed the focus of my attack. My attack stated that a vigilante must actually enforce an existing law. The KKK was not a vigilante group. They enforced their own morals. Personal Morals are not laws. Vigilantism requires that a person "take the LAW into their own hands" not "create and execute laws and punish for a violation of them." Remember the Framework tells you, as the judge to vote on VIGILANTISM QUA VIGILANTISM, ie the essential features of an action that allows it to qualify as vigilantism. These "what if" scenarios A) are not within this framework and my opponent himself says they are "absolutely worst case scenarios" and B) is really not beneficial to the debate as it would allow him to get out of an argument by proposing a remote possibility of harm. Imagine if this was done in real world, say in congress. "we need to cut our reliance on foreign oil" "But what if the middle east gets mad and nukes us?" is that really an educational way to debate? So my opponent violates the Framework and Theory on this argument. C2, while I agree that real world examples are good, all my opponent did was present two scenarios, a good revolution and bad vigilantism. But Then again my opponent dismissed this mans failure as a reason not to justify vigilantism. But we need to accept that plans will sometimes fail. An Innocent man is brought to trial for criminal charges and convicted. Is the trial then unjustified because of the possibility the outcome would be wrong? What about people like Bernard Geotz, the famous "subway vigilante" who received massive popular support for his actions and his charges were dropped by a jury because they believed that he had acted well and properly. Jury Nullification allowed Geotz to get off from 18 of of 19 charges because people approved of his actions. Or what about the Cuban Revolution that allowed Fidel Castro to seize power? See? this is why my opponents contention here is another argument that destroys debate. It turns it into a game of math. "are there more good vigilantes or more good revolutions?" AFF "the only way my opponent can achieve his burden is if the vigilante is perfect." This statement is completely illogical, once again it points to a crucial flaw in my opponents case. Justified actions can have risks, that doesn't mean we can't do them. Yes there are possibilities for failure in all things, so what would my opponent propose? Sitting in a corner until we starve because the Food could be undercooked and the water carry a disease? The Burden of the negative was to prove as a GENERAL RULE we had to negate. All he has argued is that there are certain times in which vigilantism COULD be bad. This Is outside of the Framework once again. The Framework needs to be followed as it allows a place to debate so that both sides can initiate clash and to limit the focus. It also also the debate to be even as neither side can all of a sudden switch the focus of the debate. This Response my opponent gives doesn't even address many of the points I made. The Police example targeted the argument he made that "a single individual would carry out everything him/herself." I point which he seems to have dropped. I also don't present the Police example as an argument for my case as he says but rather to point out the absurdity of his claim. "if a vigilante works in a group, the punishment will ultimately be up to the individual" And if this group has standards? Or discarding that possibility you should look to my contention three on regulation. My opponent contends "However, when a group is acknowledge to have power and is accepted by the presiding form of government, as in your example, then it is a peaceful revolution of power. The police system, a form of government, is being replaced by another form of government, the so-called vigilantes." Just another example of How Vigilantism can be a form of Revolution. He doesn't tell us why my analysis is wrong. Why can't an instance of vigilantism, recognized by a community, but still acting outside the law, lead to a reformation of a new government entirely in that community? My opponent never addresses this. C2, My opponent contends that "Vigilantes think that they are better than the government, and thus don't need it, and revolution is replacing a government with another one" however his assumption here is wrong. According to who, do vigilantes believe they are better? vigilantes believe that the rule of law is sacred and must be upheld when government fails. A community is lacking in police enforcement. Vigilantes Appear and enforce the law. these vigilantes are officially recognized by the community. They become part of a new government. This fits under the definition of revolution, and it was done via vigilantism. C3, My opponents continuation of the wal-mart example is incorrect. The man marking down prices would not be a vigilante but either a revolutionary, by trying to forcibly change the government, or a criminal. Vigilantes need to enforce the Law, so unless the prices are unlawful there is no vigilantism. Implications of C3. Everyone wants to survive. This is uncontested. So from there using Smiths market system, the vigilante if he wants to protect his "profit" ie his security. He needs to find an equilibrium between vigilante action and his security. If his actions are too harsh, his security is jeopardized as other will take him down in turn. If is actions are not enough his security will be jeopardized because crime will run rampant. Thus intuitively, he regulates himself. Refer to my case for the full analysis. Remember judges to look at the framew