Vigilantism is justified when the justice system fails to enforce the law.

The first paragraph was a news report from the source you listed, I agree, but I did not try to make it my own. Granted, I did not list the source, but I also did not list a source for my quotation, should I penalized on that? Anyways, that's just how I was taught in my Debate Class, to bring a quotation, report, or statistic as a 'hook'. So, I do not believe I should be penalized. "'his wife was killed' That was not an act of vigilantism, as it was not the apprehension of criminals. So this is not a point against my case. " It is a point agenst your case, perhaps you inferred it wrong. It goes with my first contention that vigilantes are dangerous, and, as it says soon after, the vigilantist endangered the lives of their community, as they usually do. This is inexcusable. "'[V]igilantes act in self-preservation, and they also take the law into their own hands. ' There is nothing in the definition of vigilantism about self-preservation. " They are looking to preserve their way of life by making sure that the guilty be brought to justice. That is self-preservation. "Vigilantes have their own moral code, and vigilante groups have even stronger codes. Instability is unlikely, unpredictability would not be any worse than any other justice system, and there is no reason to suspect heightened danger. " Each individual has their own moral code, and a group of individuals have different moral codes. Judging by how a person is raised, that is how a person should be punished for their crime, since moral code is adopted from the parent(s). So the opinions of the single vigilantist or a group of them are biased and likely to conflict with each other. IT IS NOT THE SAME A THE JUSTICE SYSTEM/GOV. , because the government officals are unbiased and use law and reasoning, rather than morals. You said "'While they claim to uphold justice, there is no official justice in anarchy. ' The key word here is "official". Official justice is unnecessary. " Okay, imagine you have a sibling and you are playing a new game. You're not sure how to play the game yet, because you don't know the rules. When your sibling is losing, they declare a new rule. You say that is not fair. However, there is no written law/rule against it. Then the fight escelates. So you punch them in the face for trying to wrong you (heh). That leads to conflict. Just imagine that as the game of life, on a larger scale. If that happened, chaos would reign, not government. You said, "vigilantism is socially incorrect, dangerous, and inferior to the current justice system even when it fails" Even when it fails? My opponent has provided no evidence for this claim. " I have proven it. The government did fail in that case, but it's consistancy is still better then the inconsistant vigilantist. You said, "'I would rather live with law that sometimes fails than with no law at all. ' Good quote, but wrong on two points. 1) The law does not "sometimes" fail. The law has failed. There is no expectation of the law working again. If it does, it is outside the parameters of this debate. 2) Vigilantism is not the same as no law. Vigilantes apprehend and punish suspected criminals, and criminals have broken the law. Without law there are no criminals, and without criminals there are no vigilantes. So not only is vigilantism not the same as no law, but vigilantism cannot exist without law. " 1) Allow me to point at that A LAW and THE LAW are completely different. A law has failed, but not THE LAW. And actually, the law itself did not fail, just the enforcement, so that could be applied to any law. So the question is not whether or not a law works, it is will enforcement work, and whether or not enforcement will work is outside the debate, not the law itself. 2) You stated "Vigilantism is not the same as no law. Vigilantes apprehend and punish suspected criminals, and criminals have broken the law. " Vigilantists just destribute punishment to criminals, they do not have a law to operate off of, but just moral principals, like you so nicely stated. YOUR CONTENTION 1: The Social Contract "Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order. " (Wikipedia) A social contract by John Locke was precieved to create government, not undermine it with vigilantists. We derived a good deal of our constitution from him. Besides, we don't have a social contract anymore, we have a Constitution. YOUR CONTENTION 2: Preservation of Society You stated, "Without vigilantism, law enforcement would be nonexistent" This is DEFINATELY NOT true! If there was a law enforcement system BEFORE this to fail, then vigilantism must not be the only law enforcement! You also went on to say, "Without vigilantism, law enforcement would be nonexistent. Society would quickly collapse into anarchy. " Okay, I think it's time to define anarchy, "Political and social disorder due to the absence of government" (Dictioanry. com) VIGILANTISTS REPLACE GOVERNMENT! Therefore they invite the idea of anarchy! There is no law (just moral codes) which you said would quickly decline in anarchy! Therefore the vigilantists codes would be nonexistant, and nothing but chaos would reign then. I await. ..