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

LD debate is philosophy debate; sources don't matter. If you are looking for a valid source, Neil Jarman's definition cannot be used. People are biased, his definition would not be applicable in this round. Vigilantes do not aim for justice because they don't achieve it at all with a skewed view of justice. My definition is valid because I believe that vigilantism is illegal, so we must use my definition in the debate. My definition still stands. You clearly do not understand the Second Treatise. When Locke says that man cannot judge himself that means that a normal man, such as a vigilante cannot judge another man. Judges and the judicial system are not biased because they go through a series of checks to make sure they are not biased. Even if the government failed once, that doesn't mean they're not a civil government. One mistake doesn't define how the government will always be. Also, there is no guarantee that the vigilantes will never make a mistake. My first contention still stands. First of all, vigilantes do not use checks. As I stated earlier, your definition is invalid, and we must use my definition. According to my definition, the Luis Fanor Hernandez group is a vigilance committee, and they definitely do not use checks or go through due process. Even if the Amadlozi in Port Elizabeth uses due process now, that doesn't ensure they will in the future. Legal authorities may be biased, but they have to go through checks to make sure they are still just. Thus, my sub point A is relevant, and vigilantes do not use due process to punish criminals and are not justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. My sub point A still stands. Even if vigilantes are a form of popular sovereignty, they still need checks. People are biased, so they need checks to make sure they are still just. That is the reason we have a government. The Luis Fanor Hernandez group was still a vigilance committee because they were trying to protect the citizens and enforce the law. Fighting gangs is a form of vigilantism because you are punishing criminals that break laws. When you said that the Luis Fanor Hernandez group was not trying people with due process that refutes the point you've been trying to make all along. Vigilantes do not use due process and therefore they are unjust. The fact that they killed innocents strengthens my point and shows how vigilante committees can become corrupt and are therefore unjust. A vigilante's aim is not justice because it is not just. My sub point B still stands. My second contention is the contention made up of the two sub points. Even though you attacked my sub points, you never attacked my actual contention. In LD, this means that you agree with my second contention. Since no new arguments may be brought up, you have dropped my second contention and you agree with it. My second contention still stands. The resolution has no time frame, so the Jim Crow law example was valid because it showed a time where vigilantism would not be just. China would force abortion on parents who have more than one child. That is why the law is called "China's One-Child Policy". I am not misusing information, clearly my opponent is the one that is misusing information. Vigilantes do not aim to achieve justice because they are unjust. Vigilantes uphold any law that has failed to be enforced, and if they enforce an unjust law they are unjust. My third contention still stands. I completely disagree with my opponent's first contention, and it was never dropped. My attack on her first contention still stands because my opponent's response was completely invalid. Popular sovereignty is unjust because there are no checks on the people. I brought up due process, the Constitution, etc. up to show that the government is just. Unlike popular sovereignty, there are checks to make sure the government is just. Again, I do not need to provide any analysis. LD debate is philosophy debate. I am not missing the phase, "when the government has failed to enforce the law." I have noticed the fact that the government has failed to enforce the law. The government will uphold these laws. One mistake isn't always a mistake. And, I'll point out again there is no assurance the vigilantes won't ever make a mistake. My opponent's first contention fails. I attacked the entire second contention and this included both your sub points, so your first sub point does not stand. Vigilantism does escalate violence. You can't fight crime with crime. Your examples of vigilantism are not valid because they only create a sense of competition with actual government officials and this causes violence between government officials and these groups. That is unjustified. I brought up an example of the Luis Fanor Hernandez group and as I said before they are an example of vigilantism that is unjust. If a law enforcement official participated in a vigilante activity it would still be vigilantism. Law enforcement officials do not make something an act of the government because they do not include everything that makes up a government such as laws, the Constitution, due process, etc. Thus, vigilantes only cause more violence, which is unjust. My opponent's second contention fails. The affirmative is clearly unjust and does not protect rights which is what my opponent and I both value. Vigilantism undermines human rights, which leads to injustice. The negative ensures protection of rights and justice for everyone because it goes through checks to make sure the government is just. Thus, for all these reasons I urge a negative ballot.