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

He and I perhaps agree that occasionally vigilantism can be morally legitimate, but I refer readers again to his definition: "Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason. " As my opponent has framed his entire argument within this definition, I suggest that he has repeatedly contradicted himself and failed to explain how vigilantes "taking the law into [their] own hands" can possibly be legally justified. It has been enlightening to learn a little about LD debating, but I am still pretty confused about it. I find it hard to understand how two people can have a meaningful debate if they are free to back up their arguments with any kind of hypothetical circumstances they choose to impose, no matter how preposterous. I'm also still trying to work out precisely which elements of LD have been dropped from this debate and which have been retained, but hopefully readers and voters will be less confused than I. Now to turn to what my opponent says in round three. "if we were to assume that we were working in a hypothetical place, such statements as "innocent until proven guilty" could be nonexistent. " And assuming that we are not in a hypothetical place (which I presume is what was meant by "whatever I stated on LD should not be held to great value since the style has been dropped. ") what then? "I already won. " Similar to my opponents previous assertion that it was impossible for me to win this debate, I don't see how this is true as debates on this site are decided by voters. "Vigilante can simply mean "Observer" or "Watchmen" as its etymology states. "Law", on the other hand, implies a lesser value than "The Law". " Etymology is the root origin of a word and often has very little to do with it's meaning. In English 'vigilante' does not mean 'observer' (this meaning has more relevance to the related word 'vigilance') any more than 'sinister' means 'left' or 'hysterical' means 'of the womb. ' (source:COED) As for law and Law, I don't see a lesser value or even any kind of concrete distinction between the two. You could substitute the two spellings for each other every time they appear in this debate and the meaning would not be altered. "does this mean it is equally possible that anyone performing an act of vigilantism will spontaneously combust or turn into a pink blancmange? I hope not. " My response: By its nature and definition, absolutely :)" Oh dear. My opponent says the following: "Just because a law states something, doesn't make it just automatically. " "Full following of the law is not possible. We must look to the lesser of two evils. " "Is this "legal reason" always just? " "A LEGITIMATE LAW ISN'T NECCESARILY MORLLY JUST. " These are all statements I agree with but due to the definitions my opponent offered at the start of this debate (that 'justified' should be applied in a 'legal' sense) I would suggest that they support my position rather than his. "Also how can self-defense be LEGALLY justified if it has been declared ILLEGAL? To this point, I must admit that I failed. " I appreciate my opponent acknowledging at least one of the short-comings in his argument. "LYNCHINGS ARE NOT A FORM OF VIGILANTISM! I order for an act to be considered vigilantism, the act would have to be close to parallel to what the government would have done (look at my definition). " I would point out that this is in fact not mentioned in the definition of vigilantism. Once again: "Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. " "Can you legitimately claim that in a court of law, people would have been killed for their race? " Of course not but from my understandings people who were lynched were generally accused of some crime (such as breaking segregation laws or sexual assault of a white woman. ) Although these supposed crimes were generally a smoke-screen for racial hatred, I was under the impression that some sort of accusation was normally made and the mob would therefore justify themselves as enforcing the law. "I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT: Prove that the Jim Crow laws and black segregation laws were morally just or that they weren't legitimate laws. " I don't see how I could prove this and as I never even suggested it, I don't see why my opponent wants me to. I must admit that I have limited knowledge of American history or society but obviously these laws were totally unjust and if my opponent says they were legitimate laws I see no reason to dispute this. I honestly don't see how it's relevant but maybe I am missing something. I said: "Taking the law into your own hands is not legally justified. " My opponent said: "Just because a law states something, doesn't make it just automatically. " I don't really get my opponents point at all here but remind readers that his definition of 'justified' was "to have had a sufficient legal reason. " Either my opponent has changed his definition or he contradicts himself. I said: "Self-defense and vigilantism are distinct whether self-defense is legal or illegal. " My opponent said: "Not in a case where it is not sanctioned by the government. If we assume that battery is illegal but self-defense isn't, the situation both fulfils the conditions for vigilantism and proves it morally just. " I maintain that these are still two very different things, even allowing for the fact that in some hypothetical situation one could fall into the category of the other. I said: "If self-defense was illegal then like vigilantism it could not be justified. " My opponent said: "Legal authority is not what justifies something in all cases. " I agree but in this particular case, my opponents definition states that it is. I said: "Only those with the authority of the law or (The Law) are legally justified to enforce it. " My opponent said: "No! Why do you think we have something called the court of law and civil lawsuits? " Officials in the courts and those who preside over civil LAWsuits have the authority of the law and are legally justified to enforce it. I would suggest that one reason why we have these systems is to prevent people from "taking the law into [their] own hands and punishing suspected criminals" I said: "Innocent until proven guilty" is the Law so it is not legally justifiable to be "punishing suspected criminals. " My opponent said: This is not applicable everywhere, especially in hypothetical cases. Where is it stated that the government implied in the resolution would follow this model? Sorry I forgot about the hypothetical cases again. So has this element of LD been dropped or not? I can't say, but it is a convenient way of not responding to one of my central arguments. Also if we are both permitted to hypothesise then I should ask where does it say that the government DOESN'T follow this model. Lastly my opponent lists the following reasons why people should vote AFF or PRO: "1. My opponent fails to defend his case adequately or as well as I do. 2. My arguments are more convincing. 3. I successfully carried out my burden. 4. I won more arguments. " I won't bother to address these points individually but I think it is clear that they represent merely the opinion of my opponent, an opinion which I would suggest is somewhat deluded. Vote Con. Thankyou.