Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law -- strictly LD

OK so, I think that the round will break down into: 1st round AC, NC. 2nd round half AR? then the NR. And the third round 2nd half of ar+2ar which is fine since it's usually a short speech anyway and also I would ask my opponent in order to make it more LD-ish where aff goes last just to give a pretty short 2nr in the third round. STARTING WITH STANDARDS: First as an overview to the standards I think we can both agree we impact back to a general utilitarian idea and if my opponent would agree I propose we abandon unnecessarily limiting values and VC and adopt maximizing the greatest good as a general standard and reserve specific weighing for voters. So when I address standards I will be attacking how the case impacts do not achieve utilitarianism. On values. I believe it is ridiculous for us to be debating values at this point as it is undeniable that both justice and human rights are "bad" in addition justice protects human rights clearly and vice versa. But with this whole deal about other rights must be weighed also. I would say thats find as long as you conclude that life, if not the only right, clearly has more weight then the others. You can have no rights without life. Onto the criterion. 1) Wheres the bright line? When can we characterize a system of justice as stable. 2) I don't see any warrant specifically for the VC, don't let her cross apply something later. 3) What kind of judicial system? What if this is in a country where the regular judicial system is to have wise-men sit in a council and say, "He did it" 4) If necessary I can link into it, or at least access the benefits of stopping anarchy as I show in my case. ONCASE: Starting with A: My opponent claims that there are other reasons for a government besides inept-ness. However the counter examples of it being due to lack of resources are equally reasons its a bad government. A government being not effective is un effective no matter the reason. Any government that is not helping its people cannot possibly be "legitimate". And also my opponent claims I don't analyze the government before I turn to vigilantes, however: 1) The resolution does not allow us to know whether it is a 3rd world country or anything of the sort 2) My opponents counterplan (D) bites into every single harm of this 10 times the amount I do so you should throw it out for contradiction and if you think this point is valid then you would vote against her for destroying the government. ALSO: TURN this point against the negative, Vigilante groups actually re-enforce failing governments. the police can absorb the vigilantes and receive their support and power. Vigilante groups and police forces have a pattern of merging, Bruce Baker affirms, "The overall picture of non-state policing…is captured not…of…a straightforward loss from the public arena back to the private one, but of a…overlap… Examples of this inter- penetration abound. [Vigilante] groups…have been absorbed into the public police reservists…. There is an increasing exchange of information about the patterns of crime…anti-crime technology and…the disclosure of public criminal records to private police groups." Vigilante groups merge with the government, and the impacts of this are that the government can gain the different kinds of support that all vigilante groups enjoy, Jon rosenbaum and peter sederberg explain "The type, source, and extent of support received by a vigilante group are determinants of such an organization's…effectiveness. Vigilantes require material and psychological support, and the absence of one or both may result in dissolution. The source of support may either be internal or external. Internal support may consist of…leadership and comradery; external support may be provided…by the private sector, or by…extralegal organizations. Support may also be direct or indirect. Indirect support…may simply consist of ignoring the illegal activites…while direct support may include the provision[s], training, and funds." So as we can gather from sederberg and rosenabum the government gains the 3 following advantages from the vigilantes: FIRSTLY: The government receives the physiological support, that is, the support of the hearts and minds of the people. Vigilante groups all, in order to exist, have the support of the general populace and this support is transferred to the government allowing them to govern as a government of the people and be obeyed. Secondly: The government gains the internal support in the vigilante group, which is the dedicated followers and the charismatic and capable leaders. This improves the government as they have those who are dedicated towards crime stopping with them and also leaders who are capable which would be in need in such a dire time. Thirdly: The government gains the direct external support of the vigilante groups, such as money, arms, or any other physical help. These resources would be in dire need in a government that for example, doesn't have taxes since it's broken down. B) 1)This point is completely non-unique. There is NO procedure in the negative world as I will show later, and vigilantes are all we got. 2) There is no warrant for all vigilante groups having no checks, I don't see any examples of them being abusive. Don't let her give you warrants in the next speech. There is no reason why a vigilante group can't be organized like the sungusungu in Tanzania who efficiently patrolled the streets and gave people trials. 3) "a group of vigilantes are far more likely to violate the rights of offenders, as they are human beings as well", so apparently theres a justice system run by non humans then? 4) The vigilantes will always be protecting more human rights as at least they are taking SOME action to try and stop crime. C) 1) Eventually some vigilante group would win out. 2) Without the vigilantes, you would simply have gang wars instead! The harms are non unique 3) TURN IT: Vigilantism solves for corruption, crossapply the corruption contention in the AC. 4) This is simply not true, vigilante groups enforce dominant social values so will do things similarly her cards are about one single situation which is not typical, William C. Culbertson writes "Vigilantism, like conflict and politics, is a constant social struggle to contain victimization. Vigilantism is a part of politics because it is a desire to maintain an established social and legal tradition and at the same time a desire to bring about a prelegal condition for a new order...Vigilantism is a breaking of the existing law to serve the future for the law; it is a disintegration of a lawless, victimizing, in egalitarian social set for its reintegration to include more or broader social values.... in many instances it has been... acting to create or enforce dominant social values and norms so as to make them into law" D) 1)My opponent advocates violent revolution however, in many case vigilantes ARE the revolutionaries. There is no mutual exclusivity 2) The new government set up by violent revolution could be worse than the old one and vigilantes combine! Throw out this point as A) Governments made by violent revolutions have a pattern of being abusive dictatorships B) We cannot weigh something when we don't know what it's result is. 3) This relies on C as my opponent said so if I defeat C I defeat the counter plan. 4) This bites into every harm in A. OBSERVATION DEBATE: 1) This is not conditional my benefits clearly do not rely on my winning this point. 2) Lets be fair, honestly do you think that the resolution writers wanted the aff to support killing someone who littered? It's only fair that we debate this on an even level. 3) She dropped the analysis that THE LAW means the general body of law and and if a government is not enforcing the general body of law, not just immigration, it's likely in a breakdown 4) Come on, it's impossible to be 100% affirming