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

Refutations Value: Societal Progression Societal Progression is not compatible with the resolution for one reasons: A: The Nazi party wanted to progress the German society by dominating the world. The resolution denotes "Justified" however we can understand that societies might progress through unjust acts. VC: Will to Power In his first speech my opponent said "Vigilantes must represent the will to power of the people and act against those who oppose it. " This shows that a vigilantes will hinges upon the peoples will. NOTE: The vigilantes supposed will is SOCIETAL PROGRESS. This is not true for two reasons: A: the will of the people might not be to progress a society Many times the people do not want to continue a society but to end it. In Gabriel Garcia Marquez's book 100 years of solitude, He tells the story of how the town of Macondo was created. The story tells that a group of cock fighters and their families decided to start a new town due to an accident that happened after a match. B: Most of the time the wills will conflict Uniting to achieve a common goal can happen, but this does not state that all of the wills of the citizens will be the same. as proven above. Vigilantes will be torn on which values to enforce. Observation One: I will attack the first part of the observation. Vigilantes are not necessarily acts of a committee. I will pose one question to my opponent : If a vigilance committee was exterminated except for one person would he still be a vigilante? Is it still called vigilantism? Contention One: There are three flaws with this contention: A: The vigilante doesn't necessarily have the tools to reform or even find the criminal The vigilante isn't a government. It doesn't have all the branches or resources of even the most basic governments. B: As I stated in my third contention vigilantism does not achieve deterrence. It is a cycle: A criminal pops up we catch him another pops up C: With reference to A: above we can see that the vigilante might not even catch the criminal. However I will to the extent of saying that the vigilante will harm society. Killing an incorrect person can harm families and thus society. Contention two : ( Look at VC: Will to Power) Defense: V: Societal Welfare VC: reduction of Human suffering My opponent even concludes his explanation of his value by saying that society cannot progress without the establishment of a social order, and I have already proven that the social order will collapse if the people's wills to power are not maintained. Thus, we must value Societal Progression as the supreme value in this debate. First, I will differentiate my value from my opponents. Societal Welfare is clearly superior because Welfare is much more widely needed. First progress can be bad ( Look at V: Societal Progress), but welfare is always good. C1 Justice can only be approximated. That was my opponents response, however what I was trying to establish is that since we all have different concepts one vigilance committee would fight another to establish their justice. This proves that vigilantes who uphold a will of justice ( as dictated by their community) will fight with another who tries to do the same but misunderstands it. C2 I will concede this point as an inaccurate assertion if the peoples will is not to uphold the law. The truth is that the peoples will can be anything. So since my opponent cannot establish the exact will it could be dictated as this in one city or justice or whatever in another. C3 My opponent misinterprets my contention. It just says that the pain and crime will never end. I proposed but never established as an option to reduce suffering not end it. Questions: Explain the will of the Vigilante.