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

I would like to point out to my opponent that one who commits vigilantism is not a vigilantist, but a vigilante. It's not particularly important, but I was somewhat annoyed by it. I thank my opponent for the improved paragraph organization. ". . . I did not try to make it my own." If you post something, it is implicit that you wrote it. My opponent did not place the quote within quotations, implicitly saying that it was his own. This is plagiarism, and is unacceptable. "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." As I previously said, it was not an act of vigilantism, so my opponent's rebuttal does not apply. "[Vigilantes] are looking to preserve their way of life by making sure that the guilty be brought to justice. That is self-preservation." That is not self-preservation; it is preservation of a way of life. And even if it could be considered a type of self-preservation, it is still a positive type – in which case it is not relevant that it is self-preservation. "Each individual has their own moral code, and a group of individuals have different moral codes." Human morals have many common threads. Most any moral code within the standard deviation is a helpful one. "government officals are unbiased and use law and reasoning, rather than morals." 1. Government officials are not unbiased; lack of bias is impossible. 2. What is morality, but reasoning? And what is law, but a general sense of morality? Please refer to my definition of morality. "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." Imagine you have some written rules. You and your sibling are playing this game with written rules. When your sibling is losing, he claims that it is not fair and punches you in the face. In my scenario, there is an absolute law, but conflict still breaks out. My opponent's analogy does not depict a lack of government; it depicts a lack of law. Vigilantism cannot exist without law, so the analogy is inapplicable. "I have proven it. The government did fail in that case, but it's consistancy is still better then the inconsistant vigilantist." 1. My opponent did not prove it. 2. The government's job is not to be consistent. The government's job is to uphold the law. When it fails to do so, it is no longer a relevant entity. 3. Consistent failure is better than inconsistent success? How? 4. Why are vigilantes inconsistent? They enforce the law, and the law is consistent. "whether or not enforcement will work is outside the debate. . ." This is a concession of the original point, that point being "I would rather live with law that sometimes fails than with no law at all." "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." I remind my opponent of the definition of "vigilante". Vigilante: A citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing suspected criminals. Since criminality is defined by the law, vigilantism cannot occur without the existence of law; subsequently, vigilantes operate upon law and only law. "A social contract by John Locke was precieved to create government, not undermine it with vigilantists." It is a concept to explain the validity of government. The only reason why vigilantism is not normally justified is that the government has the power of law enforcement; but by breaking the social contract, the government loses this power, and vigilantism is justified. "We derived a good deal of our constitution from him. Besides, we don't have a social contract anymore, we have a Constitution." The social contract is not an actual written contract; it is metaphorical. The social contract exists wherever there is government and is cannot be overwritten by a constitution. "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!" There *was* a law enforcement system, but it failed. The only way for the law to be upheld is for vigilantes to step up and take responsibility. "VIGILANTISTS REPLACE GOVERNMENT! Therefore they invite the idea of anarchy!" Vigilantes do not invite the idea of political and social disorder. Without vigilantes enforcing the law, the law would become meaningless and society would become even more disordered.