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

Hope to see some good rebuttals in the future rounds. From my opponents Case: "The Value is Societal Progression. Essentially, evolution of human values, political and economic structure, and human thought on a societal scale. This is the ultimate value in the round as it solves for two main problems: 1)Insofar as each step forward society makes is a step towards morality, justice, etc. if society does not progress then one can only uphold these notions as best they can within a faulty system. 2) If the hypothetical state cannot progress then one assumes the failure to enforce the law will still actively occur and will not be changed. " My Response: My opponent's value is abusive, because it is not a value; it is a fact. According to LD rules, the value premise must be an idea that can be achieved though reasoning. If a value is a fact, then it can't be achieved, since it has been achieved from the moment it became one. If change has always been there and will always be there, how can we not agree on its tangibility? "The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be. " — Isaac Asimov From my opponents Case: "The Value Criterion is Social Revolution. The criterion stands unless the affirmative can prove that society can progress without some revolutionary action. " My Response: My opponent doesn't provide us with a definition for revolution. Because of the subjectivity of this noun, I must provide one in sake of fairness. "Fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed" (Merriam Webster) My opponent doesn't account for events such as 9/11, the assassination of Martin Luther King, etc. , that fundamentally changed our society without overthrowing the government. How can you argue that the aforementioned events did not change our society without overthrowing the government? How could the increased importance of security and such events as the re-interpretation of Geneva Convention 4(A)2 not be regarded as change? Did these actions overthrough the government? With the limitations set by my opponent, I carried out my burden and we can no longer look to my opponent's Criterion. After my opponent's Value and Criterion, her entire case is based on the following two points: 1. We, as humans, have an obligation to further change in the world. If my opponent fails to answer the following questions her entire case is invalid: Why shouldn't we let the inherent nature of change take its place and run free without further human aid? If change is always going to occur, why do we have to make change perpetuate? How are we going to make change perpetuate? From my opponents Case: "2. Vigilantism deters change. " My Response: What my opponent fails to acknowledge is that vigilantism, by its very nature is change. Vigilantism will only occur as a result of government failure. The fact that vigilantism is trying to fill the gap left by government inefficiency is change from pre-existing government protocol. From my opponents Case: "Contention One: Vigilantism stifles revolution through punishment. A. Crimes are inherently political. " My Response: This entire sub point is so indirect that it should be considered invalid unless my opponent gives tangible evidence to support it. How can we consider all crimes to have political motivations? The entire argument, if held true, is abusive, because of its indirect nature. From my opponents Case: "B. Political revolutions require some form of government inadequacy" My Response: My opponent doesn't account for the fact that vigilantism requires some form of government inadequacy to exist. Vigilantism will only occur if a government fails at one or more of its duties. Vigilantism works to fill this gap until the government can take care of the situation. Until further evidence is presented, we must presume this point false. From my opponents Case: "Link: Vigilantism strengthens the efficacy of the government by punishing those the government cannot. " Why is it bad if vigilantism will solve the problem experienced by the society by strengthening the efficiency of the government? From my opponents Case: "Contention Two: The Status Quo does not allow for revolution. " My Response: Again, my opponent does not account that vigilantism is, in essence, change. The original Status Quo is the failing government. This Status Quo is changed by vigilantism which steps in to try to correct injustices and fill the government's responsibilities. From my opponents Case: "AFF OBSERVATIONS 1. No, that's abusive, you can't say it's "negligible" and "functions well mostly". The resolution only tells you they failed, go off that, don't make stuff up. " My Response: That is my personal interpretation, which my case is built on. It is abusive only if it is forced upon my opponent. However, my opponent has the liberty to post his or her version; in which case we can debate on the more appropriate interpretation. If, however, my opponent fails to post his or her elucidation, my analysis will stand as the valid one, which we must abide by for the rest of the debate. You have a good case, which stands a chance at local tournaments, but at higher level tournaments, it is going to be picked apart because it is based on the whole idea of vigilantism deters change. Nice to see that somebody actually takes time to write their case. Good Luck