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

Unfortunately, due to my opponent's inexperience, it is impossible for him or her to win. In LD debate you must have a Value Premise (what you value) and a Criterion (How are you going to achieve your VP) in order to win. If we are going to debate in LD style, my opponent will automatically loose. However, in the sake of fairness, I will drop the burden of providing these. I would still retain the following aspect of LD: 1. The debate is entirely theoretical, no real world application is necessary. 2. We are still working in the LD vacuum (An entirely hypothetical place of existence where every situation is fully possible) From my opponents Case: "I accept my opponent's definitions but would suggest that they do not go far enough." My Response: Please elaborate why. There is no support for this argument. From my opponents Case: "vigilante: [derivatives: vigilantism] a member of a self-appointed group of people who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority" My Response: To make the debate more fair and educational, as it was originally intended, I offer the following definition for vigilante: "A citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands without legal authority." My definition is derived from the Black's Law Dictionary, which has been used as secondary evidence in several supreme court case and is the main source for definitions for LD debaters. My opponent places an abusive burden on me by presenting a definition which greatly restricts who could be considered a vigilante. I would also like to remind everyone that the debate is about vigilantism, not vigilantes. From my opponents Case: "(The new definition) offers a more precise clarification of the fact that they 'take the law into their own hands' 'without legal authority'. However when placed in the context of Pro's definition of 'Justified: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason' this becomes a clear oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. There can be no legal reason without legal authority." My Response: My opponent's entire argument is based on the following: "There can be no legal reason without legal authority." This argument is abusive! In order for it to be considered, my opponent needs to define legal reason and legal authority. Both phrases are subjective and my definitions could greatly vary from my opponents. I accept my opponent's definition for legal, but do not accept the definition for law. 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 value premise and criterion are no longer necessary for this debate; therefore, I will not defend them. To defend my contention 1. From my opponent's case: I don't quite understand my opponent's notion of 'a society where individuals do not have the right for self defense' please clarify or give an example of this. Nor do I understand the idea of 'vigilantism in cases of self-defense' as we have just established they are two different things." My Response: I originally posted my case under the assumption of debating this case in LD style. Because of my opponent's inexperience regarding LD style of debating (this has been dropped); he does not understand the basic concept of the LD vacuum (entire hypothetical place in space where any and every situation conceivable is possible). 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. In this case self-defense is a legitimate form of vigilantism. For the rest of the contention, my opponent argues for the irrelevancy of the contention. The government system can not only be proven to be more effective than vigilantism in enforcing the law, if we still accept the parameters and framework established by the LD vacuum. In this argument, I make the point that WHEN DEALING WITH CRIMES INVOLVING TRAUMA, VIGILANTISM IS BETTER BECAUSE IT MINIMIZES THE TRAUMA EXPERIENCED BY THE VICTIM. You, as the voter, must decide if this argument is irrelevant. For my second contention, 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. My opponent needs to present arguments in this order: 1. The argument 2. Proof 3. Why the argument is relevant to the case To my opponent's arguments on MEAN VIGILANTES This is irrelevant. My contention is based on the vigilante's attempts to achieve a more just society by relying on the sole form he can take; vigilantism. My opponent argues against my case in a very indirect way. For this argument to be considered, my opponent needs to answer the following question: WHAT MAKES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT MORE "ALTRUISTIC" THAN VIGILANTES?