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

I also welcome his instructions and enlightening explanations of the LD debate format of which I acknowledge my ignorance. He (or she) says that it is impossible for me to win this debate, but apparently everything is possible in the "LD vacuum" so I will leave that for voters to decide. I get the impression that I have now left it too late to propose a Value Premise but if I did mine would be Law & Order, by which I mean respect and obedience to the law and to those appointed to represent it. This can clearly not be achieved through vigilantism and I suggest that Respect for Social Order can not be achieved through these means either. My opponent seems in some way offended by the "abusive burden" I placed on him (or her) by offering a definition of my own [ "Please elaborate why" - it was to further clarify matters, ] therefore I will meekly withdraw my definition of vigilantism from the debate. This definition was never intended as a contradiction of my opponent's original, they basically say the same thing, I'll go along with my opponent's original definitions. "Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason. " My point stands that if a citizen takes the law into their own hands they do so without legal reason. The law is to be enforced by law enforcement officials, not you and me. My opponent seems to have completely ignored this central part of my argument as well as the issue of "innocent until proven guilty" with regard to punishing suspects. I would have appreciated it if he had spent more time responding to my actual argument rather than castigating me for my ignorance of LD and proclaiming that I cannot win. My opponent says: "I would also like to remind everyone that the debate is about vigilantism, not vigilantes. " "I would like to remind everyone that the resolution specifically speaks of "The Law" instead of "law". The law is a collective noun, whereas, law is a noun. Their distinct definitions should not be confused. " My response: Please explain how these trivial distinctions are relevant to the case. My opponent says: "This argument is abusive! " My response: I am very sorry if you feel like I abused you, this was not my intention nor my interpretation of my actions. My opponent says: "he does not understand the basic concept of the LD vacuum (entire hypothetical place in space where any and every situation conceivable is possible). " I admit I don't fully understand the idea of debating in a space where anything is possible, does this mean it is equally possible that anyone performing an act of vigilantism will spontaneously combust or turn into a pink blancmange? I hope not. "My contention was written in a circumstance where the "government" of the resolution has deemed self-defense illegal. In this case, self defense goes along with the parameter of the definition of vigilantism. " I don't think my opponent made this idea at all clear in his opening statements. If he did then I am sorry I missed it, it does kind of change things a bit. Is he saying that vigilantism is ONLY justified if it as an act of self-defense? If he is arguing that SELF-DEFENSE is legally justified why did he not say so to begin with? Also how can self-defense be LEGALLY justified if it has been declared ILLEGAL? "In this case self-defense is a legitimate form of vigilantism. " Illegal yet legitimate? Once again my opponent seems to be contradicting himself. But maybe that's allowed in LD debate? If "every situation is fully possible" does that mean contradictory statements can both be true? My opponent says that I need "to present arguments in this order: 1. The argument 2. Proof 3. Why the argument is relevant to the case" I fail to see that he has followed his own advice in this debate when presenting arguments but I will attempt to do so for his direct challenges. "my opponent argues that vigilantism occurs more often in the larges social classes, and that vigilantes aren't necessarily going to be altruistic. Firstly, I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT TO PRESENT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT. " 1. My argument is stated above. Thanks for that. 2. For proof look at high profile cases like Bernhard Goetz, the lynchings you referred to and all the other lynchings in history. 3. For me lynching is the most obvious example of vigilantism and the best explanation for why it should not be justified. Basically how I explained it in the previous round, but apparently this is "irrelevant" and "indirect" although my opponent does not say why or how. My opponents other ALL CAPS challenge: "WHAT MAKES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT MORE "ALTRUISTIC" THAN VIGILANTES? " 1. Nothing does. I never said or implied that they were. Neither officials or vigilantes are necessarily altruistic. What judges, police officers etc. do have,that vigilantes don't is the authority of the law, and to apply my opponents own definition; only such officials can have "sufficient legal reason" to enforce the law, apprehend or punish criminals. 2. As we agree that they are not more altruistic do I really have to prove it? 3. This argument is only relevant to my opponent's irrelevant question, it is not relevant to the case. As my opponent has not fielded any of my core challenges to his position. I will present them again in the hope that he will. Taking the law into your own hands is not legally justified. Self-defense and vigilantism are distinct whether self-defense is legal or illegal. If self-defense was illegal then like vigilantism it could not be justified. Only those with the authority of the law or (The Law) are legally justified to enforce it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is the Law so it is not legally justifiable to be "punishing suspected criminals. " Vote Con. (it's possible if you make it happen! ) Thankyou.