Vigilantism is justified when the justice system fails to enforce the law.

I apologize for my absence, but I did not have access to a computer over the course of the three day weekend. Forgive me for the vigilantist-vigilante issue, I'll try to avoid it. Heh. "This is plagiarism, and is unacceptable." I do not cite every source for everything. If you need to know where I got that source (like you reguarly ask in a debate) just say so. You stated, '"It is a point agenst your case, perhaps you inferred it wrong. It goes with my first contention that vigilantes are dangerous, and, as it says soon after, the vigilantist endangered the lives of their community, as they usually do. This is inexcusable.' As I previously said, it was not an act of vigilantism, so my opponent's rebuttal does not apply." I do not feel the need to debate the validity of my example; it should be left for the voters to decide. You said, "That is not self-preservation; it is preservation of a way of life. And even if it could be considered a type of self-preservation, it is still a positive type – in which case it is not relevant that it is self-preservation." Preservation of a way of life for yourself IS self preservation. You said, "Human morals have many common threads. Most any moral code within the standard deviation is a helpful one." We are not talking about the average human, we are talking about the unusal role of the vigliante. So we can not assume they have the same 'moral threads' as the rest of society. 1. Government officials are not unbiased; lack of bias is impossible. 2. What is morality, but reasoning? And what is law, but a general sense of morality? Please refer to my definition of morality. Rebuttal 1. Govermental officals are trained to control reflex judgement and do not base decisions on raging emotions, like many vigilantes do. Even if that is true, the defendent can have a retrail- a do-over. 2. Morality is a code of ethics. I could be raised that it is okay to beat your wife into submission and have her obey you, like some people are raised. If not everyone has the same code of ethics to operate off of, they do not operate off a definate law. So, no, morals are not reasoning, but a way of upbringing. You said, "In my scenario, there is an absolute law, but conflict still breaks out. My opponent's analogy does not depict a lack of government; it depicts a lack of law. Vigilantism cannot exist without law, so the analogy is inapplicable." EXACTLY! I used the analogy to defend the point you made agenst "there is no need for offical justice." With anarchy, it replaces government and the current justice. And in the scenario, there is no offical justice, because there is no government (government = the game they are playing) present to create offical rules. You stated, "'I have proven it. The government did fail in that case, but it's consistancy is still better then the inconsistant vigilantist.' 1. My opponent did not prove it. 2. The government's job is not to be consistent. The government's job is to uphold the law. When it fails to do so, it is no longer a relevant entity. 3. Consistent failure is better than inconsistent success? How? 4. Why are vigilantes inconsistent? They enforce the law, and the law is consistent. REBUTTALS 1. I did prove it. The government is more consistant than vigilantism due to emotional motivation and lack of infrastructure-it's just common sense as well. 2. There will never be a perfect government, just as there will never be a perfect vigilante. So we must make the best decision between the two, which is government. 3. I said that government is consistantly successful, and vigilantes were not. I'm afraid I do not understand your point. 4. Vigilantes enforce the law to an extremety in many cases. Just because they enforce the law to an extent does not make it automatically good. You said "whether or not enforcement will work is outside the debate. . ."This is a concession of the original point, that point being "I would rather live with law that sometimes fails than with no law at all."' That wasn't a point, but a quotation. Anyways, if it is within the realms of this debate (I'll entertain the idea), government law enforcement is better than vigilantes enforcement in many ways. "Since criminality is defined by the law, vigilantism cannot occur without the existence of law; subsequently, vigilantes operate upon law and only law." Since vigilantes do not need an 'offical law' like you said, what is stopping anyone from being innocent or a criminal? With a goverment can we clearly distinguish criminals from innocents. "(A social contract) is a concept to explain the validity of government. The only reason why vigilantism is not normally justified is that the government has the power of law enforcement; but by breaking the social contract, the government loses this power, and vigilantism is justified." I remind my opponent that this is nessecary only in forming a government, not with a government itself, which has a Constitution, not a social contract. "The social contract is not an actual written contract; it is metaphorical. The social contract exists wherever there is government and is cannot be overwritten by a constitution." Actually, a verbal agreement can be overwritten with a constitution. And if it is not written, what stops them from saying 'you said you wouldn't do that' or 'this'? It reflects your point on "no offical law", which no longer withstands. "There *was* a law enforcement system, but it failed. The only way for the law to be upheld is for vigilantes to step up and take responsibility." I would like to point out to the voters that you acknowledge your defeated point. The law enforcement system did not fail as a system, because every law enforcement system, even vigilantes, fail. Again, we must choose the better of the two (government). "Vigilantes do not invite the idea of political and social disorder. Without vigilantes enforcing the law, the law would become meaningless and society would become even more disordered." Heck, no one invites the idea of political and social disorder, but they do so unwillingly by their willingness to uphold justice as individuals and not as a whole. Without vigilantes enforcing the statistaclly small cases of failure, I do not believe that law would be meaningless and we would be more disordered. Actually, I believe that it would be less complicated, but life's complicated, isn't it? Again, I apologize for my absence. God this was long... I had to type it twice too....