resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

First off, I will address the format of this debate which will be LD. Rules of LD apply...... Here is a link which may help anyone who accepts but has vague knowledge of LD debates. http://www.geocities.com... I will proceed. I affirm. Resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. --------------------------------------Definitions---------------------------------------------- 1. Black's Law Dictionary defines vigilantism as "the act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals of the law". 2. Justified implies justice. Something that is justified has been demonstrated or proven to be just or able to give each other due. 3. Failed is to have fallen short of obligation. 4. To enforce the law is to give force or effect to compel to. ------------------------------------------Observations--------------------------------------- 1. By analyzing the resolution, it is taken to an understanding that the event of failure has taken place. 2. John Locke explains the relationship and social contract between any government and its people. The people give up certain rights to the government for example the right to kill. If, however the government fails its end of the compact or to pursue its duty, the people are given the right to take matters into their own hands. -------------------------------------------Burdens-------------------------------------------- B1: The negative must prove that vigilantism is not justified. ---------------------------------Values/Value Criterion---------------------------------- V: Justice, where justice is giving each their due. Justice is the paramount value because the wording of the resolution concerns justification. VC: Maximum Protection of Human Rights. All people are granted a series of unalienable rights. For example, the right of self defense. Any government that is legitimate should uphold and preserve these rights to be legitimate. They are a standard of justice. ---------------------------------------Contentions-------------------------------------------- 1. People aren't obligated to recognize non-legitimacy. John Locke explains that "a government that fails to fulfill its responsibility to its citizens is not a legitimate government, thus citizens are not obligated to recognize its legitimacy". Because the government has failed to enforce the law, it has failed to preserve justice, making it a non-legitimate government. Therefore the people are not obligated to recognize it. 2. People have the human right to defend themselves. Elizabeth Ayyildiz explains: social contract theory: "if the state fails its obligation to protect its citizens, the government is considered dissolved and the people are entitled to provide for their own protection". Because the government has failed to provide protection for the people, the government is dissolved. People have the human right to then defend themselves from anything that harms their well-being. Because the government cannot uphold justice and ensure peoples' security, the people have the right to defend themselves. It is ethical for any legitimate government to uphold this right. 3. Vigilantism spurs government reform which allows maximum protection for human rights. Suzette Heald explains: "from the early 1980's onwards in central Tanzania, Sukuma and Nyamwesi villagers began to reorganize their own form of collective policing which became known throughout Tanzania as Sungusungu. Over time, these groups, which initially by-passed the official agents of state, far from being rejected, have become an integral part of the administrative structures of vast areas of rural Tanzania". In this situation, vigilantes altered the state's nature and initiated long term reforms. Vigilantism is the first and best step to government reform, maximize human rights and therefore preserving justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you to whom ever accepts the debate, you may proceed. Thank you!