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

Thank you for forfeiting your round. There are a number of difficulties with your argument: The rules do not allow a debater to decide what format his opponent's argements will take. To do so would be unfair. I would like to know where the idea originated that it is fair to allow a participant in any contest to dictate the terms of the contest. Particularly after the contest has started according to the rules set by the refereeing software and not according to some other set of rules which I have not even seen in writing and where are they please and also where are the LD format rules to which you are referring? Any rules to be valid must be furnished in writing and agreed to by all participants prior to the start of any fair competition. Therefore this competition is not fair. But I don't care I'm just going for the glory. LD (or Lincoln-Douglas) format, originally used in formal arguments in court, and as all debate formats, http://www.csun.edu... specifies a precise language and debating style in order to facilitate scoring and time management for formal oral high school debate tournaments. Basically it is a set of time limits for each portion of the debate which is divided into constructive, cross, rebuttal and crystalization. Without the time limits there is no practical reason to divide the argument into parts at all and hence little sense in referring to "LD format" in a written debate. My opponent is pulling a fast one. There is no such thing as what he is imagining. What LD format means depends on who you ask and when. LD formnatics walk among us spreading the word but they are not having much luck. A seasoned debator tells about judging a debate where everyone in the room was clueless: http://www.wcdebate.com... Any logical argument can be put into LD format in a fairly obvious and straightforward way once of course you know what LD format is. It is for oral debating tournaments. Do refer to the LD debate rules of the NFA, or the UIL, or the Education Workshop or SDHUSD? Quoting again from the above source: (3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent. Therefore claims of "nothing to attack" are spurious. You just forfeited your round is what you did. Anyway to continue regarding the proposition. Your definition of "vigilante" is priceless. A vigilante exacts what they believe to be justice from criminals. So if they exact what they believe to be justice from law-abiding citizens that is not vigilantism. Anyway they are not criminals until they are convicted in a court of your precious fictitious law which never makes a mistake. Even the system itself knows better than that. "The public knows that our criminal justice system is in a shambles," as one State Supreme Court opinion put it in a rare moment of candor, "and those who have been convicted of a crime know it too." A judge considering me for jury duty asked if I had ever been on a jury before. Yes, a state grand jury. Her response is quite telling: "Did you see anything that would bias you against the system?" So bias in favor of the system is OK? Why would you ask? Because it becomes pretty obvious if you are paying attention. The Report of the President (Kennedy)'s Commission on Organized Crime states that organized crime could not exist without corrupt politicians, cops and judges. This is from the horse's mouth. Well I am here to tell you there is organized crime. Therefore there is corruption throughout the system. It is the system that is biased, not me. This judge was preparing to go to trial with a jury pool of perhaps 300 people with five of them minorities but even they had RVs. In that grand jury everyone but me owned their own home, and several were building. They took absolutely no interest in what was going on and did exactly what the AG said and wondered why they kept getting called up. Separation of powers should apply here you know. The judge let me off, especially since the other time I was on jury duty I dozed off. Jury duty is the only time an ordinary person gets to participate in government and they give preference to those who hate it and do exactly what they are told. Of course capturing someone and handing them over is not vigilantism. There may be some problem with who you hand them over to however. We are infatuated with murder. There are other crimes. Of course volunteers could, and do, ably perform many functions of government. More should be allowed to contribute where they can. Get back at your least favorite supermarket or restaurant by handing them a personally autographed health violation citation. If we handled road rage this way it would certainly be more satisfying.