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

There isn't much space here, so while it's LD format the NC is JUST going to be constructive, otherwise I don't have enough space to adequately refute. Instead, I'll just address your observations. In my rebuttal I won't address your attacks either, so it's fair. Basically: R1 = Constructive R2 = Rebuttal R3 = Summary I hope that's alright with you, because I'm not refuting anything here. I negate, "Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law." 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. The resolution requires a change of the status quo for any impacts to be weighed; otherwise they are moot as the harms deriving from the current system are repeated indefinitely. The Value Criterion is Social Revolution. Social revolution is necessary for society to progress. Modern capitalism and democracy is a direct result of revolution across the world. I maintain all social progress, especially en masse progress (i.e. structural shifts as outlined in the value) is a direct or indirect result of some form of revolution, be it an intellectual or physical one. In the words of Emma Goldman, "No real social change has ever been brought about without a revolution - Revolution is but thought carried into action" The criterion stands unless the affirmative can prove that society can progress without some revolutionary action. Contention One: Vigilantism stifles revolution through punishment A.Crimes are inherently political Warrant: Crimes are actions that reject the current legal structure of the state. All actions that are political crimes (treason, assassination) are obviously political, but even crimes that are undertaken for other motives are still inherently political. Crimes are a rejection of the current political structure, they feel the law should not apply in said circumstance and so criminals commit a crime because they do not respect the legitimacy of that law. Rejection of law and actions that derive from that are political revolutions in and of themselves as they act to destroy the efficacy of the current system. Link: Vigilantes punish criminals. Impacts: 1) vigilantes punish political criminals, thus direct stifling of social revolution. 2) Vigilantes punish criminals whose actions are inherently political revolutions, thus stifling a larger social revolution. B.Political revolutions require some form of government inadequacy Warrant: Political motions do not succeed unless there is some failure by current political structure. Movements like the civil rights movement cannot succeed unless the government fails to stop them; insofar as black oppression would never have been brought to the public eye if every sit-in and peace rally had been dispersed instantaneously, rather political movements that partially succeed bring their revolution to the public, and thus can be enacted adequately. Fully efficient punishment allows no revolutionary say from the subjects of a state and they will never achieve anything. Link: Vigilantism strengthens the efficacy of the government by punishing those the government cannot. Impact: Political revolutions cannot be effectively undertaken when vigilante actions occur, as vigilantism stifles motions that require some failure to occur. If political revolutions cannot occur then social revolution cannot occur. Contention Two: The Status Quo does not allow for revolution Warrant: The Status Quo and revolution are incompatible by definition. The warrant is clear; the status quo is what is, the way things work now and revolution is the redefinition of the way things work. Essentially, the status quo is the beginning. The revolution melts down the status quo, eliminates it, and then establishes a new status quo. An action (in this case, revolution) that eliminates a structure cannot occur simultaneously with the existence of that which it destroys. A vacuum eliminates air, after a bag has been vacuum sealed it no longer contains air; to argue that the status quo and revolution are compatible is to argue that after vacuum sealing a bag that bag is still full of air. Link: Vigilantism promotes the status quo by strengthening the current system. Through strengthening the law, we automatically strengthen the organization that develops that law, and reaffirm the legitimacy of that organization's existence. Thus, vigilantism, by punishing criminals and carrying out the law, promotes the legitimacy of that law and thus the status quo. Impact: Vigilantism, through promoting the status quo, eliminates any revolution. It reaffirms a system incompatible with change, and at that point social revolution cannot occur. Through affirmation of the current structure vigilantism by its very nature does not allow for revolution to occur. AS FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE OBSERVATIONS ==== 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. 2. Agreed. 3. Agreed. 4. Agreed.