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

[Hi everyone. I would like to debate this case LD style] [Please don't accept if you're not serious about debating the topic] I affirm the resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. For clarity in the round, I offer the following definitions: Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason. Government: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization. Failed: to be or become absent or inadequate. Enforce: to carry out effectively. The Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority My Value Premise for the round will be Respect for Social Order, which I define through a contractual obligation agreed upon by citizens when they enter a society (John Locke's social contract theory). I will achieve my value premise through my Criterion, which will be Respecting Human Dignity in the face of injustice. If we respect the inherent value of all human beings, we are in essence, reducing chaos and rooting order in society. If respect for human dignity exists, there will automatically be a much greater chance of creating social order. The first objective of any efficient government is to remain in power. This status quo is held by keeping social order. Therefore we should look to my value in this debate. For further clarity in the round, I offer the following observations: 1.I interpret the resolution as a government which is still operating and functioning well in the majority of its duties. The government has failed to perform its duty of keeping the law in an almost negligible part. This is where vigilantism steps in to defend social order. 2.Because there is no mention of an existing government in the resolution, the resolution is not real world specific, and because we are working in the LD vacuum, we must automatically consider all examples presented by either side of the debate. However, we must look to the debater that reaches a more tangible value premise and criterion. 3.We cannot look solely to theory in this debate, when the theory becomes abusive to either side of the opposition. Every case is supposed to be written in Claim-Warrant-Impact format. When a case lacks the impact (why the argument matters in contrast with the resolution) it not only has a fundamental case structure flaw, but also becomes limited in the amount of rebuttals that are possible to make against the case. Also the subjectivity of the case increases because a theory can't be proven and the lack of evidence increase variable interpretation. 4.The affirmative is not justifying vigilantism as an absolute method by which a society should operate, only as an option when the government cannot rectify or detect injustices. Contention 1: Vigilantism defends people's natural rights. People naturally have rights that can't be taken from them. This is part of the reason we join society. In some cases, a government can't fulfill its role as a protectorate, such as domestic abuse, self defense or rape, vigilantism is the only way to resolve the situation. Vigilantism provides a way for victims to defend their natural rights. In a society where individuals do not have the right for self defense, vigilantism proves effective. Vigilantism makes the protection of oneself justified. This is not a new concept. Societies like the United States justify vigilantism in cases of self-defense because the government would have acted in the same way as the vigilante. By empowering vigilantism, we empower the voiceless and rectify injustices instantly without causing a secondary victimization to those who suffered in the course of the original crime. Secondary victimization is the cost that is incurred onto the victim of a crime, such as rape, and the process by which a victim has to work along with the authorities to legally deal with the situation. Secondary Victimization includes being asked to repeat traumatic testimony of the experience of being raped over and over again under strict scrutiny to fill out a deposition. The victim is then asked to prolonged a remedy to the situation because they are wrapped up in legal semantics, like court clogs and delayed adjunction on the culprit. Additionally, during the trial, the victim has to retell the trauma a 3rd time in front of a jury and an audience of strangers, followed by getting picked apart for inconsistencies and the destroying of their personal character from the defendant's attorneys. Vigilantism aims to bypass this traumatization almost completely by making the severity of the crime committed more apparent to the society and speeds the entire process of justification. This reduces most of the trauma induced unnecessarily by the court system. http://www.musc.edu...... Contention 2: As history has proven, vigilantism is the only way to bring about attention to unjust laws or to the failure of enforcing laws already established. The very nature of politics forces parties to make laws they know they cannot or will not enforce. In all forms of government, the sovereign must appease citizens in order to give appearance of appeasement. In the case of the Rosewood lynching, the governor of Florida watched blacks getting lynched by white mobs. He did not enforce the active anti-lynching laws because he needed to appease the aggressive mobs. It was only after the survivors of the genocide attacked neighboring towns did people discover the existence of such events. Vigilantism provides a way for people, mainly minorities, to affect the government. Because of the vigilantism present in Rosewood during 1923, enforcement of anti-lynching laws effectively began. This is an effective example of vigilantisms ability to affect the government's judicial system. Vigilantism is the only way for the voiceless to rectify injustices and bring about change in the government. When a minority depends on vigilantism to rectify injustices, their actions are justified by the actions taken to avoid further violation of their rights. http://en.wikipedia.org...... [Thanks for debating, good luck to my opponent]