Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to uphold the law.

This should be a very enjoyable debate. I accept my opponent's definitions, and will also add my own definition of vigilante, just to make things absolutely clear. Vigilante: one who practices vigilantism. My value premise is also justice. One of the primary jobs of the government is to uphold justice. My value criterion is the social contract: society agrees to forfeit power of law enforcement to the government, and the government agrees to effectively enforce the law. The social contract allows non-anarchical society to function. If one side of the agreement is broken, then the other side is no longer obligated to hold up its end of the contract. {blockquote}Contention 1: If the law is unjust and the vigilante enforces the law then the vigilante is unjust. {/blockquote} If the law is unjust, it does not matter who enforces it; it is no more or less unjust when enforced by vigilantes than when by the government. In response to my opponent's example, I agree that it was unjust for vigilante groups to lynch blacks for things such as having sex with a white woman. But it was also unjust for the government to execute those blacks for the same reasons, and the deed was no more unjust when done by vigilantes. The logic used above may also be applied to unjust or "stupid" laws that are not enforced by the government. Vigilantes are just as able to not enforce those laws. If a vigilante did enforce a law such as no skateboarding without a license, it would be no more or less harmful than if the government enforced such a law. {blockquote}Contention 2: Vigilantes don't render retributive punishment. {/blockquote} My opponent supports this contention using an entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, claiming that "the most effective path to achieving justice is through retributive punishment. " Also, my opponent claims "vigilantes do not enforce laws through retribution. " I cannot see where my opponent is getting his information from so I cannot see the context of these statements, and this makes it difficult to respond. I will do what I can. My opponent has provided no evidence to support his two claims that I have quoted, and I do not see them as self-evident or even subjective: both claims are capable of being supported by evidence, and therefore should be. I cannot accept my opponent's claims until he provides evidence. I deny that the second claim is true; it is surely sometimes true, but to claim that no vigilantes enforce laws through retribution is to make an unwarranted assumption with a lack of evidence. {blockquote}[Contention 3] As vigilantes spread fear and anger in the community. .. {/blockquote} This statement has not been justified by my opponent. My opponent must provide evidence that vigilantes spread fear and anger before the rest of the contention can be considered, as it mostly relies on this sentence. Not all of it does, however; the concept on counter vigilantes is independent, and I will now rebut it. If the Black Panther Party (BPP) did inspire widespread fear, it is arguable that this fear was counteracted by the positive influence of the Black Panthers supporting the black community. The BPP were a strong force in raising awareness about racial intolerance, and their fear perhaps helped this. In addition, though they were widely feared, they were also widely supported, so the effect on communal cohesion was both positive and negative. The BPP raised awareness about racial intolerance as well. If we agree that they instilled widespread fear, and to be afraid of something we must be aware of it, we can conclude that the BPP must have raised awareness. It is actually arguable whether the BPP inspired widespread fear, as my opponent has not supported this claim. But accepting that they did, they also raised awareness. In addition, it is unclear that the BPP can even be included under the definition of vigilante. For the example to be applicable, the BPP or their actions must be a direct result of vigilantism. The Black Panther Party did not enforce the law, and were therefore not vigilantes. My opponent may argue that the Ku Klux Klan caused the BPP's actions, and therefore everything done by the BPP was caused by the KKK; however, my opponent has no evidence that the KKK directly caused the actions of the BPP. I have evidence against it, in fact: the KKK were based in the southern US, while the BPP originated in California and were based in more urban regions. (wikipedia. org) I was getting somewhat off topic there, so I will bring it back with a summary: using the Black Panthers as an example of "counter vigilantism" is not a fair example, as the Black Panthers had significant positive effects as well as negative ones. In addition, the BPP could not be considered vigilantes. In order for the example to be applicable, my opponent must a) factually prove that the BPP were vigilantes or that their actions were caused by vigilantes, and b) convince you that the BPP had more negative consequences than positive in the long term. I will touch upon your summary of contention 3 in order to clarify, and summarize my own arguments. {blockquote}3)Vigilantes spawn more vigilantes which cause more fear in the community. {/blockquote} Fear harms community cohesion, but the Black Panthers contributed to community cohesion in the black community. In addition, the long-term effects of their actions helped move us towards the cohesion of both the black and white communities, as their actions were strongly anti-racism and raised awareness about racial intolerance. Now for my own contentions. Contention 1: Vigilantism Is Justified When the government fails to uphold the law, the social contract is broken. The community can no longer rely on the government for protection, and other means must be employed to protect society from criminals. Society is no longer obligated to obey the government: vigilantism is therefore justified from the standpoint of the government and the social contract. Contention 2: Fundamental Rights Every person has the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are greater than any government. So if the government is unable to support these rights, a person has the right to protect them. In the case of an incompetent government, vigilantism is justified: these fundamental rights must be protected, and vigilantism is the only available method of protecting one's own rights. Contention 3: Vigilantism Is Necessary To Withhold Society With an incompetent government, the community will soon collapse into chaos unless vigilantes continue to enforce the law. Vigilantes may inspire fear in the community, but they may also inspire hope. In the end, vigilantes are those who catch criminals, and they are the only line of defense between criminals and the fundamental rights of the citizens. Without vigilantes, society is left unprotected and each person must fend for himself. Why should those who protect the community not inspire hope? Regardless of how people feel about vigilantes, they still uphold the law more effectively than the government, and upholding the law is necessary for the functionality of society. Why live in fear under the reign of a worthless government? I would much prefer to be protected by the heroes of society that we call vigilantes. References (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.blackpanther.org...