Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law -- strictly LD

AFF V: You will prefer human rights protection because my opponent doesn't define justice. If justice is to be defined by vigilantes or victims only, this can lead to clear and highly unjust abuses of those accused of crimes. C: 1. My opponent's criterion assumes we can ignore all stable nations who still have vigilantes. We can't. 2. We cannot assume that all government efficiency is good. Hitler's Nazi regime was very efficient, but clearly not justified. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nina Card: Here's what else Nina says in that same paragraph: "The role of the state embodies the protection of its citizens, the guarantee of a constitutional order, the adherence to the rule of law, and a monopoly on the use of violence." A government, when challenged by vigilantes, will respond by attempting to reclaim its authority, which is not the same as changing enforcement. In a democratic state, that will be characterized by government necessarily combating vigilantes who present a clear threat to constitutional order and adherence to the rule of law. In a corrupt government, the harms of my case will become apparent, and vigilante groups will actually be used to entrench the abusive state. Nina continues: "Problems of crime and the transformation of an ‘imagined' or ‘real' social order are not solved through the adoption of vigilante activities. Moreover, vigilante activities associated with a political motive, should not be permitted in today's democratic society." Rosenbaum/Sederberg: There's no warrant to guarantee that a nation's actions to regain its monopoly on violence will always lead to better enforcement. Also, use this Rosenbaum/Sederberg quotation, from my opponent's same source, in which the authors distinguish revolution from vigilantism: "Although the prevailing concern with revolution is understandable, it obscures a second form of violence—that is designed to maintain the established sociopolitical order." Vigilantism is not intended to incite government change, and as I have proven, it cannot succeed in doing so. C2. Vigilantism stops corruption in government. 1. If my opponent cannot produce systemic change, he cannot claim any impacts out of his 2. 2. Cross apply Higazi. Vigilantism will keep corrupt governments in power due to their inability to change the status quo. They specifically work inside of the status quo, and can be manipulated by it due to their inability to unify as discussed in the negative advocacy. 3. All poverty impacts flow to the negative after a successful revolution replaces corrupt or inept governments. If we are looking to long-term solvency, revolution will be preferable to vigilantism because of the systemic change factor. 4. Governments that are failing to enforce some laws, but that are not on the brink of revolution, like the US, show that poverty and lack of enforcement are mutually exclusive. My opponent can only claim poverty benefits in cases where the government is clearly illegitimate, and I've already addressed this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEG Value: 1. Cross apply my analysis on the standards debate at the top of the aff. Without knowing what justice is, the affirmative may be supporting victim-centric justice, which will not protect the human rights of the accused. 2. I don't have to conclude that any right within my rights structure is paramount over another. All basic rights are paramount. While a dead person cannot enjoy rights, a person without rights usually would prefer to be dead. "Give me liberty or give me death." Criterion: 1. As I stated in the description of the criterion, it is "equitable and centralized." This analysis is further made in my case, when I state that vigilantes will inevitably abuse the rights afforded to the accused, hence violating their human rights and delving out revenge-based justice and unproportional punishment. The brightline is built into the advocacy. 2. One need not card every single sentence. I'm also not sure what my opponent needs a warrant for. If we had CX, I'd ask for clarification. 3. A justice system concerned with equity will, by definition, be able to maximize human rights. 4. With the assumption that he can stop anarchy. See my responses to his case. He can't link to equity because vigilantes can't achieve as much proportional punishment. CASE A. My opponent misses the point here. He is claiming that the US government is just as ineffective as apartheid South Africa, which is ridiculous. He asserts that my sub-D bites the harms outlined in my sub-A, but no warrants here at all. He never bothers to explain to you how a revolution cannot lead to a stabilized after-government, when empirically it can. On the turn: 1. The moment they are absorbed by the state, they are no longer vigilantes. 2. This card has limited its scope to only governments that are failing in the extreme to enforce the laws. My opponent can't win this if he loses the observation debate. He does not take into account vigilante actions in any first world country, or any other continent than Africa. 3. If the government is to enforce its laws that much, then throwing more untrained law enforcement at a systemic crime problem cannot fix the system itself. 4. The most corrupt governments are likely to use vigilantes to quell actual dissent or regime change, hence reaffirming a government that is abusing the rights of its citizens. Cross apply Higazi. B. 1. Non-uniqueness only works if we restrict the debate to extreme cases. 2. So my opponent can give examples of peaceful vigilantes in RD 2, but I can't give examples of despotic vigilantes in RD 2? I'll follow my opponent's lead anyway: Rwanda, Nigeria, South Africa, the US, the UK, Germany, Italy, Guatemala, etc. More than that: I have logical warrants which mean nothing to my opponent. Vigilantism is individual justice; it is the victim trying the criminal, rather than an objective, third party institution. It doesn't take much to tell us that vigilantes are closer to the crime than a jury or magistrate. Hence, the psychological response will be one of revenge, brought on by the crime. 3. Wow...take the sub as a whole. Human beings are fallible. The reason we have state-sanctioned justice is to preserve to the highest possible extend equity. The closer the victim is to the enforcement and punishment, the more bias is inherent in the process, and the more human rights will be violated. 4. Again, this is only applicable if we over-limit the debate. C. 1. No warrant for this at all above the scenario presented in the sub and Higazi. 2. The harms are only non-unique if you restrict the debate to chaos vs. vigilantism. 3. No turn if I take out corruption on the AC. See the aff flow. 4. "Enforcing dominant social values" doesn't imply any sort of good, nor does it eliminate vigilante competition. This doesn't answer the sub. D. 1. Vigilantism is clearly mutually exclusive. See his own source. 2. Note that revolution, even if it leads to a worse government, is still more solvency than vigilantism. However, I would not agree that violent revolution more often leads to worse governments than better governments. First world revolutions have been more successful, but that's probably because we haven't had to deal with colonialism. Bottom line: still more solvency that vigilantism. Observation Debate: 2) Agreed. We need to debate it on all available, generalized levels. Hence, you have to debate vigilantism manifested in governments that aren't totally broken, like first world nations. They all have vigilantes. 3) My analysis was clear. I don't have to refute every sentence of your analysis to refute it effectively. Your "body of law" argument is refuted in that the entire body of law doesn't hav