RE: Vigilantism is justified when the U.S. government has failed to enforce the law.

I'd like to go ahead and justify my last post, due to my opponent's lack of knowledge pertaining to LD formatting; first of all, when I say 'in conclusion', that would be to conclude THAT post, not my entire case for vigilantism; in an LD round, the affirmative always gets the last chance to argue: It's a little thing called the 2AR. On the South Africa evidence, keep in mind that while he says laws, rights, etc. may be different, he never refutes the fact that rape, arson, murder, theft, etc. are the same crime no matter what country you go to, and he says "I restrict any foreign information in this debate"; while he may be the instigator in this debate, I don't believe that he has any right to tell me what evidence I can and can not use (especially when I can justify its use). As far as the KKK, all he says is that he was clarifying what the KKK was; let me say that the CON in no way should be able to ask me to justify lynch mob violence; in fact, look back to the first point in my case (completely dropped by the con); vigilantism PREVENTS extreme reactions to crime; so, without organized vigilantism, we would have a much greater chance of seeing a lynch mob. On the definition debate, two things here: 1. My opponent keeps using the phrase 'a vigilante', but I'm not arguing a rogue individual acting outside of the community; I'm talking about an organized, community-sanctioned group. 2. If the vigilantes are not accepted by the community, then the community would disallow them from acting, so even if you buy the idea of the individual vigilante, you'll still vote PRO because of the fact that the members of the community serve as a check on the vigilante's power. As far as violence is concerned, he gives this nice little quote from law. jrank. com; I will admit, vigilantes aren't incorruptible. But of course, everyone is susceptible to corruption: "At this point, most people are ready to say that the prospect of private law enforcement is a guarantee that people will abuse their powers, thus making government-run police a necessity. This argument assumes, of course, that government law enforcement officers do not abuse their powers. " . http://www.lewrockwell.com... So, once again, even if you buy the argument that vigilantes are corrupt, keep in mind that it's not unique to only vigilantes, so you would be voting CON on a potential harm that's possible in any system of justice. Also, on the Tennessee case, let me clear something up: When I say 'within community boundaries', I don't mean inside the city limits; I'm referring to the legal and moral boundaries of that community; if vigilantes don't act for the interests of the communities which empower them, those communities fully reserve the right to remove them from power; keep in mind also that these vigilante groups are not acting to avenge ONE crime; the entire body of laws has been destabilized by the government's failure, and therefore, without organized community vigilantism, no one is going to be enforcing the laws. Vigilantism is needed for a government; look at contention 1, points 2 and 3 of my case; without vigilantism, the government would not be pressured into reform, and it would simply overcompensate for its failure, which would lead our government even farther down the path to authoritarianism; a perfect example of this overcompensation was the 9/11 attacks; our government failed to protect us, and what did it do afterward? 2 wars in the middle east. The PATRIOT Act (both 1 and 2), wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, the list goes on and on, but it all adds up to one thing: overcompensation. This proves that, especially for the U. S. government, an unstable society gives way to authoritarian tendencies. To quickly sum up my opponent's definition, he simply repeats his original definition, and the idea that they 'cannot be trusted'. Keep in mind that he isn't justifying his definition over mean, he is simply re-explaining it, while I have clearly proven to you that since the community empowers these vigilante committees, it is obviously a finite community response (because once the government is restructured, the vigilante committees are dissolved. ) The last little bit my opponent says intrigues me: "How I think they have to handle it is to clearly reformat the government. This can range from replacing law enforcers to government officials. But regardless, it would be more effective than allowing vigilantism. " Let me point out several things wrong with this: 1. In the period between the government's failure and the government's reformation, the CON does absolutely NOTHING to guarantee justice, while the PRO at least gives you an option (look back to Contention 1, point 1: Vigilantism prevents extreme reactions to crime, so once again, Vigilantism = no lynch mobs). 2. Look again at Ctn 1, Points 2 and 3: First of all, re-apply the analysis I gave on how vigilantism prevents the government from overcompensating for its original failure (because the government cannot be allowed to reform by itself, lest this overcompensation be the result). Also, I really want you to pull through Point 3 about how vigilantism brings to light the social conditions causing crime in the first place, and only with the pressure on the government that vigilantism creates can one reform the government successfully; to put it simply, no Vigilantism = no reform. 3. He drops the example I give about Vermont, and how they have adopted the Communitarian model to an extent, and they have been very successful in dealing with criminals by bringing the community and the victim back into active, participatory roles in the criminal justice system; this is the kind of reform we want. After this, he makes the claim again that vigilantes don't understand the law; re-apply what I've already said on this subject, mainly that because the community empowers these individuals to act, they have to have knowledge of community rules and morals to be authorized to do so; if they were clueless, the community would not allow them to represent the interests of everyone in the community. Finally, he makes the claim again that I'm apparently not allowed to say any of what I just said. So, I'll give you a choice, voters: One, you can look at true LD format, in which the PRO (Aff) always gets the last word (the 2AR), and vote for PRO on the grounds that my opponent merely repeats himself in places, and completely drops all of the arguments in my case which pre-empt many of his own, and especially the fact that while my opponent advocates reforming the government, he gives you no way to achieve justice in the meantime, while the PRO at least gives you something; it may not be the cleanest option, nor effective 100% of the time, nor incorruptible, but anything is better than what my opponent gives you: nothing. If you don't believe any of that, then yes. Please, feel free to vote CON, based on his repetitive argumentation (albeit it is worded a bit differently in each formulation), and especially the fact that, rather than hear what I have to say, he would tell you TWICE that I don't have the right to make a final post because of his misinterpretation of LD format, and the conclusion to my last post. I urge you today, look past the format-oriented attacks and tautologies (repeated arguments worded differently each time), and vote for the side that gives you logic, truth, and a path to justice.