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

My opponent states that sources do not matter in an LD debate. This is, however, a ridiculous statement because, without sources, any debater can make up random arguments and be able to get away with it. The only debate where no evidence is required is Parliamentary debate, not LD. By not providing evidence, my opponent is admitting that her definition of vigilantism is invalid because she cannot find a single place within the law of the United States where vigilantism is illegal. Furthermore, by saying that Neil Jarman's definition is flawed, she is admitting her own flawed reasoning. My opponent's definition comes from herself, not a dictionary or any other source, meaning that it is also biased. Jarman's definition, however, is the least biased in this round because he states that vigilantes SEEK to promote justice (something my opponent agreed upon) and are not illegal. Since Jarman is an expert on vigilantes, we must accept his definition. My opponent then defends her first contention by stating that judicial systems are not biased. However, in the US, the supreme court judge is the one who determines the outcome of the case. Thus, segregation was made legal for many years. In this resolution, the government has failed many times, not just once, because my opponent agreed with my definition of "the law" as a whole. Though the vigilantes may make mistakes, their goal is Justice, which is the same as the government. And since they are the only ones enforcing the law, my opponent's contention does not stand since all legal systems have one person judging the case. Gang fighting is not vigilantism. Gangs often see themselves as "the law" meaning that they do not respect governmental laws. They actually didn't protect the citizens because they cared for the citizens, they regarded the citizens as "their property" and other gangs as people who violated their property. Thus, that gang was not a true vigilante group. In my OPPONENT'S defiinition of justice, she herself agreed that vigilantes try to achieve their own perception of justice. She then goes against it by saying that a vigilante's aim is not justice. Now, vigilantes try to uphold the law, and I defined the law as those including due process and my opponent accepted this. This means she also accepts the fact that vigilantes use due process. Therefore, vigilantes do NOT act based on perception. Your second contention was your claim, and your subpoints are your warrants. If I attack your subpoints, which are your analysis for your claims, than your claim falls apart because you have no analysis left. Therefore, I have NOT dropped your second contention. My opponent then brings up Jim Crow laws again to defend her third contention. However, she dropped my argument where I stated that there are different moral values between then and now. Therefore, back then, it was morally acceptable even though we look at it with distaste now. So that example falls. My opponent also does not know anything about China. the government does not force people to get abortions, they fine the families that have more than one child. in the more rural areas where there are different ethnic tribes living, these laws are not even enforced so that the ethnic tribe will survive. Since vigilantes aim to seek justice, they would not enforce any immoral law (that is immoral in the given time period). My first contention still remains unrefuted as I state that vigilantism is a right of the people. Saying that it is unjust does not prove how it is not a right of the people. Furthermore, since the people are the true rulers in a democracy, they do not need checks. In this resolution the only unjust thing would be the government because it has failed to enforce laws showing that it is useless and corrupt. LD debaters DO need analysis or everything will be empty claims. My opponent could say that vigilantes will always burn houses down, and if LD does not need warrants, we would have to accept that as a valid point. This would lead to chaos in a debate as every argument needs to be backed up by logical reasoning. Since my opponent agreed a long time ago that "the law" equals laws as a whole, the government has committed many mistakes and is corrupt. Thus, power to govern falls on the people and my first contention stands. Furthermore, in my second contention, opponent did not refute my first subpoint and she can't bring it up. My first subpoint was that VIGILANTES DETER CRIME. She as never proven why this is not true so my second contention stands. Remember, the contention is the main argument and subpoints are smaller arguments backed up by logical reasoning that support the main argument. Therefore, since my first subpoint was not refuted the fact that vigilantes CAN deter crime is true. Therefore, extend my Guardian Angel example as well as the fact that vigilantes do deter crime. Now, she states that my examples create a sense of competition between the government and these groups. HOW IS THIS TRUE? The government has failed in both these cases meaning that is is incapable of doing its job. Vigilantes stepping up and doing the job for the government would NOT create competition because the government has already FAILED. The Mexico gang was not a vigilante group did not enforce laws or even try to enforce laws. It was only, protecting its own territory and acting for itself, not for justice. Law enforcement officials would only make the group of the government because the officials are government appointed, meaning that it is an act of the government, not of the citizens. Vigilantes ARE citizens who are trying to enforce laws. Since enforcing laws means giving due process, vigilantes can only make the situation better. So lets take a step back and look at the big picture. In the negative world, we have a useless and possibly corrupt government that is failing to enforce laws as a whole, This includes the laws that are designed to protect human rights. Therefore, how can we possibly achieve justice in a world where criminals are given free reign and no one is able to stop them? The truth is, we can't. Therefore, we must look to the affirmative world, where vigilantes are diligently enforcing the laws that the government has failed to enforce. This only creates a sense of order in the society. The law is only as strong as those who enforce it, and since the government is clearly weak and useless, vigilantes ARE the only ones strong enough to enforce these laws. Therefore, I urge you to affirm because I have shown you why vigilantes can only make this situation better. Furthermore, since vigilantism IS a right of the people (which my opponent has dropped) affirming is the only way to make sure that the people are able to use this right when the government has failed. Since vigilantes are trying to achieve justice, whereas the government is corrupt or useless, vigilantes are the ONLY way to protect rights and achieve justice. Therefore, I urge an affirmative vote. Thank you.