MIG tourney R3: Vigilantism is Justified when the U.S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law

Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.****NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE**** NC1: Vigilantism is self-refuting "In that story, the US Government didn't fail to do its job because the US Government didn't even have a chance to do it in the first place."Ah, so in this case my opponent is saying that vigilante acts are justified when the government cannot approach the situation in time? By implying this, then he has defeated himself, because vigilante acts can be the exact same before and after a crime is committed.More on this in a second. "We're talking about bringing people to justice after they've managed to slip through the cracks of the Criminal Justice System (CJS). In other words, after a jury fails to find enough objective evidence to convict, a vigilante subjectively decides the jury was wrong and then sets out to take the law into their own hands."First of all what makes a person guilty of a crime, any less guilty of the crime after he has been wrongly set free from the criminal justice system? You never argued that criminals weren't wrongly set free. So you agree that the Justice System has loop holes. You also just agreed that an act of vigilantism is just if the government doesn't get to the scene on time. So, my friend, what difference would it make if the vigilante performed that same act, on that same guilty person, after the criminal is wrongly released? The person in question is still as guilty as before, and literally nothing will change about his conviction status. He walks, and is free to do the crime over and over again, and upon finding loopholes in the justice system, will continue to do so. Vigilante's with the same goal, can effectively do a better job at providing Justice. Your whole entire argument is a hypocritical statement.Well it's okay if the vigilante does something before the government is involved, but after the government has been involved, then No Freakin' way!"In fact, the only way to uphold truly legal vigilantism is to regulate it."Why regulate something that should already be allowed? Why not just look at the scene of investigation, realize and understand that the vigilante detained the criminal justly, and take him in? Or allow the fact that whatever the vigilante did is okay, knowing the guilt of the person at hand? ****AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE**** AC1: Vigilantism only ensures the government's goal's are carried out to peak satisfaction. "It's unfortunate that some criminals get away with their crimes, but it's much more unfortunate when innocent people are incarcerated. What happens when a vigilante is mistaken?"Here is the crux of the debate my friend! Finally my opponent admits the fallacies with the court system. He admits that it is not 100% perfect, and that the court will screw up. And his answer to my early question now seems to be "Oh well, we tried, and it's better than the alternative. However did you not say you were valuing Justice as well? If you believe in valuing Justice as according to the resolution, then you have defeated yourself my friend! Because complete Justice cannot and will not ever exist in the Neg world! Your entire philosophical belief on justice relies on the criminal justice system putting away "the bad guys". But we both know that won't always work, and that's okay. The government is not expected to be perfect. But you see, this is what demands the need for a vigilante. To fill in the cracks where the government has failed to do so.What happens when a vigilante is mistaken? Well then he is not a vigilante, he is a criminal! I made this really clear in my observation two. A vigilante shouldn't have killed a man who didn't deserve it, IE murder another man. That is generally the penalty for murder in America, the death penalty. Vigilantism is only vigilantism when the citizen (not of government origin) carries out the law in his or her own hands. Meaning that if the vigilante does something that the government doesn't promise it's citizens already, then he is a criminal instead. I am not arguing that crime should be justified, I am arguing that an act of honor in order to protect a citizens right, as pertaining to the law that provides that individual with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. "Imagine a "guilty gun" that only discharges when fired at someone guilty of murder. What would be the natural human response?"You automatically assume that vigilante's are emotional driven fools, who are hot for revenge. You discount the likelihood of the vigilante doing any research on the person in question before making his attempt at bringing him to justice. You also assume Justice enacted by a vigilante means murder every time. You certainly have a lot of un substantiated claims in your arsenal. You ask me for the burden of proof, which I have clearly provided, yet you make claims based on assumptions and hopes. This point falls irrevocably. "At first, I didn't make a big deal that my opponent was exceeding the 8000 character limit in Round 1 (9500+ characters by the way) by placing his arguments into another debate, but changing the data after I've made my rebuttal is clearly overstepping the line of conduct since readers will think my previous round is ignoring data I was not actually privileged to view and evaluate at the time."I have used debate sourcing in many debates, in which all of my opponents have been perfectly fine with. The character limit in the first round as well as having to instigate the debate with observations, framework, and formalities, take up quite a bit of character space. I apologize if you feel debate sourcing is wrong, but I will let the voters decide, as it has never been a problem before.The point remains however. All of my data in the source is completely accurate, and pulled from the U.S. Justice bureau of statistics, and proves that many criminals go free due to failure of the due process system. You try to argue that my source is inaccurate, however provide absolutely no counter evidence to this and actually agree with me several times that the justice system fails in it's attempts to bring down every criminal in question. I have upheld my BOP, yet you fail to counter it. Thus we must assume that you agree with every piece of data I have presented. AC2: The people have a right to defend the Justice system. "TUF criticizes the failures of due process for letting murderers go free, which is an emotional plea designed to distract the readers from my insistence that granting vigilantism as a right directly counters the right of due process, which has been deemed a fundamental right for since this great nation's inception."An emotional plea? This is low. I have upheld the resolution and have provided evidence as to why vigilantism is justified. Is providing and ensuring Justice an emotional plea? Again, is that not what you want as well? Justice? You agreed that Justice is the value you are supporting here. "I must insist that the benefits of due process outweighs the costs."I never once argued that the Due process system doesn't have it's benefits. Only that it has it's mistakes to correlate with those. Mistakes are extremely detrimental to the welfare of the people and continue to harm families who have been victimized all over the country. Vigilantism is an awesome way to oversee these loop holes.****CONCLUSION****I feel I have won this debate for the following reasons.CONDUCT: My opponent says that upholding Justice is the key to this debate, yet attacks both my sources, and my case saying that my attempt of achieving Justice is "an emotional plea".ARGUMENTS: My opponent admits to the fallacies of the Justice system, thus conceding that Due Process doesn't provide Justice, his own value.SOURCES: Statistical evidence of the CJS's flaws has been showed, which my opponent agrees to the system being flawed.S/G: So, so.I thank the viewers and my opponent for your time, and wish KRF luck in the voting period.