Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Firstoff, on this issue of gender. As my profile and sexual organs state, I am a male. Everything my opponent said in his last speech should be dropped because he improperly addressed my sexuality, and it is therefore difficult to decide who exactly he was talking to. But even if you don't buy that... (Forgive me if I repeat myself, but I'm "going down the flow" aka reading the arguments my opponent made in the order he made them) Against my Contention 1 my opponent claims a contradiction of criminals looking to get away with their crime vs. criminals being internally punished. The thing my opponent missed however, was the fact that the only reason criminals are looking to get away with these crimes is because the external method is driving this state of mind. But even then, my opponent missed the point of the argument, which was that NO METHOD works. He does not address this and therefore this argument flows through. My opponent then claims that we should follow "popular sovereignty". I am not going to further discuss this argument because: 1) It is a new argument 2) It is unwarranted 3) It is irrelevant My opponent also states that I misused his statement about anarchy and vigilantism. Let's take a look at what exactly he said then: "I clearly stated, '(Vigilantism) would not create anarchy, in which there is no law, because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work.' I did not say that we should stay away from anarchy, but rather that vigilantism is not anarchy." So my opponent makes the claim that vigilantism DOES work. Unfortunately, he provides NO WARRANT for this claim, which means everything he said falls already. He just says "It works!" but I can say "The sky is green", it doesn't mean it is true. Even if you don't believe that, my opponent does NOT tell us HOW or WHY vigilantism is better than anarchy. I would even contend that because affirming gives citizens the ability to choose ANY punishment on another citizen, (since vigilantes are now justified in all they do,) it would be impossible to be just in punishing these "criminals" because there is no universal laws that vigilantes follow. If my opponent attempts to say that vigilantes WOULD have a universal punishment system, (which is impractical at best,) then he shifts the debate to citizens that have organized a de facto police force which is irrelevant. EVEN if you don't believe THAT... the affirmative fails to change the status quo, which is the entire purpose of the affirming the resolution! If he concedes to neutrality, he looses since there is no reason to affirm, which is exactly what has happened. And further my opponent attacks my C.1 by saying that he doesn't support the failing government. This proves nothing. My opponent should NOT be supporting the failed system in the first place, which is proven by his stance on the affirmative. This argument does not gain my opponent any ground and I don't loose any either. Against my C.1 my opponent says: "Would you let your child (if you had one) decide his or her punishment? No, if you broke the law of the land and you could pardon yourself from anything you did, you would. That would be totalitarion, a form of government which vigilantism and democrocy do not uphold, so that point is flawed in that way." Apparently my opponent missed the rest of my contention. I state this clearly: "...criminals aren't looking to get punished, they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system." Again my opponent gains nothing with this claim. And he spelled democracy wrong, so you should cast the Spelling and Grammar ballot to me as well. My opponent makes another unwarranted claim against my first contention: "That is what it is all based on, evidence. With vigilantism, you get a first hand account of the entire situation and you can deal with it." Vigilantes don't get any more evidence than a court case, in fact, it is downright illogical and impractical to assume that a vigilante will round up a forensic team, an investigative team and all other personnel required to analyze a crime scene! The only truth in my opponent's claim is that when there is direct evidence, like video, you are certain that the person committed the crime. But unfortunately, video is the ONLY reliable evidence since it doesn't forget or leave out things that happened, like witnesses do, which means all cases that don't have video are completely ignored my opponent. For emphasis I will repeat: MY OPPONENT IGNORES OVER 95% OF CRIMINALS CASES. So at this point, if I didn't say ANYTHING in this speech, the only ground my opponent has is the ridiculously low amount of crimes that have video evidence of the crime in full, but as it is, he doesn't even have that. So at this point, my contention stands, my opponent has no ground to rightfully encourage an affirmative ballot, and I have listed all of the key issues why you vote Negative: 1) My contention one stands, which means even if all his arguments were proven to be right, you would still vote negative because he improperly addressed this one. 2) My contention one stands, which CROSS APPLIES TO ALL OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS. Because my contention one says "You can't affirm" and my contention one has been proven correct, you vote negative. 3) My opponent's first argument is false as you can see above 4) My opponent's second argument has also been proven false 5) My opponent has no ground to stand on, and if he was on the negative he might still have the chance of winning by proving the affirmative case wrong, but as it is, his case falls and my case stands. This means there are zero reasons to vote Aff. 6) Any argument my opponent makes in the next speech that I cannot address is new and should be ignored 7) Any argument made next that ignores my argument (such as his fifth paragraph) must be ignored 8) I have used