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

Even though I believe that LD debate is philosophy debate I will provide the source of my definition since my opponent is so intent on knowing. I found my definition of vigilantism in Black's Law Dictionary. This is definitely far more accurate the Neil Jarman because it is used by lawyers and judges all around the world. Again, I'd like to state that Neil Jarman is a human and he is biased when defining vigilantism. Since Jarman is biased we must reject his definition. My definition still stands. The Supreme Court judge also goes through a set of checks to make sure he/she is unbiased. Segregation has nothing to do with the government being biased. Even if the vigilantes try to enforce the law, they may also fail to enforce the law many times. Again, the one person that judges a case goes through checks to make sure that he/she is just. Therefore, we must resort to the government to enforce the law because they are legal and just. My first contention still stands. The Luis Fanor Hernandez group wasn't even a gang; they were a vigilante committee fighting against gangs. They were trying to enforce the law and punish gangs, but then they became corrupt. Thus, the Luis Fanor Hernandez group was a true vigilante group. Vigilantes do try to achieve their own perception of justice, but their aim is not justice. They are not achieving true justice, but they are achieving their skewed view of justice, which isn't really justice at all. Vigilantes do not use due process. In my definition of vigilantism I state that vigilantism is illegal. Due process is following the law and being legal. Since I rejected your definition, we must follow my definition in the fact that vigilantism is illegal and does not use due process. Thus, vigilantes do act based on perception and my sub points within my second contention still stand. You have dropped my second contention because you did not attack my actual contention. My second contention still stands. I did not drop your argument about the different morals between then and now. I earlier stated, "The resolution has no time frame, so the Jim Crow law example was valid because it showed a time where vigilantism would not be just." My example still stands since you haven't responded to it, and you can no longer attack it in your last rebuttal. My example still stands. In my research it clearly said that the government fines, gives pressure to abort, or forces sterilization upon a couple with more than one child. And even if you believe that the government just fines the government, that is still unjust. When the vigilante fines the family, it is unjust. In the more rural areas, when the government fails to enforce the law, the vigilantes will then punish those families for having more than one child. Since vigilantes aim to seek their skewed view of justice (which isn't really just), they would enforce an immoral law. Also, in the resolution states that the vigilante is enforcing the law when it has failed to be enforced. This means that the vigilante will enforce it even if it is unjust. Thus, my third contention still stands. Again, I will state that are people carry bias, and they all need checks. It is not the right of the people to do something unjust. That is why there are checks within a government. According to the LD Debate Handbook, LD is philosophy debate and there are no need for analysis, sources, evidence, warrants, etc. Therefore, my point is not an empty claim and it still stands. When the government fails to enforce the law, that does not mean that it is corrupt. It may fail to enforce the law due to lack of resources, but in the future the government will be able to enforce the law. One mistake is not always a mistake. Thus, the power to govern still belongs to the government. They will eventually enforce the law. So, my opponent's first contention falls. I did attack my opponent's first sub point. She just failed to notice it. In the second round I clearly stated, "Vigilantism quickly exceeds the benefits by creating escalating cycles of violence." This shows that vigilantism does not deter crime, but only causes more crime. I did prove why this is not true, so my opponent's second contention falls. I attacked your actual contention and both sub points. Since I did address my opponent's first sub point, the fact that vigilantes cannot deter crimes is true. The fact that the government has failed to enforce the law does not mean that the government is incapable of doing its job. Again I state, one mistake is not always a mistake. In the future, the government will enforce the law. Vigilantes would create a sense of competition because when the government tried to enforce the law they would have to compete with vigilantes to try to enforce the law. The vigilantes would only cause commotion, and in the end no one would be able to enforce the law. The Luis Fanor Hernandez group was not a gang, but a vigilante committee; they did try to enforce the law. Again, law enforcement officials do not include all the aspects of the government. They are citizens, and so when they commit an act that does not include every single part of a government (such as the Constitution, checks and balances, etc.) they are committing an act of citizens, not the government. Vigilantes only escalate crime, so my opponent's second contention fails. The affirmative is clearly unjust and does not protect rights which is what my opponent and I both value. Vigilantism undermines human rights, which leads to injustice. When vigilantes are trying to enforce the law, they are completely hypocritical because they are illegal. Vigilantism only creates a sense of commotion in a society. The negative ensures protection of rights and justice for everyone because it goes through checks to make sure the government is just. The negative is the only way to protect rights and achieve justice, since vigilantism clearly doesn't protect rights or achieve justice. Thus, for all these reasons I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.