MIG tourney R3: Vigilantism is Justified when the U.S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law

In the interest of summary, I will keep this round brief. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate and for the readers' thoughtful and responsible voting. This is, after all, a tournament debate. Negative ConstructiveNC1: Vigilantism is self-refutingMy opponent, while responding to bits and pieces of my argument out of context, failed to deal with the overarching issue of subjectivity. My argument reaches the conclusion that the resolution refutes itself when it takes into account the fact that vigilantism is carried out by bias, subjective persons. The only way to ensure that vigilantism—practically speaking—can possibly maximize justice is to regulate it within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Justice System (CJS). So, my opponent hasn't really dealt with this issue other than to insist—by circular reasoning—that vigilantism is always just and fair. Unfortunately, since my opponent's stated value is justice, he must show that vigilantism is always just, not just state it so. Affirmative ConstructiveAC1: Vigilantism only ensures the government's goal's [sic] are carried out to peak satisfaction. TUF tries to turn the tables on me here, citing my admission that the CJS has its problems as support for his case. However, his rhetoric doesn't paint the whole picture. Indeed, I've never insisted that the CJS mete's out justice with 100% perfection. Rather, my opponent is tasked to prove that vigilantism improves, or increases, justice. Has he accomplished this? TUF did show that the US Government is falls short of perfect justice, but he didn't really show us that was a failure. He gave us bogus statistics and refused to explain how those statistics were remotely supported by his charts. The charts certainly do show that criminals escape justice, but they don't come close to reaching his wild "60-80% crimes go free" figure (see my Conclusion below as to why that quote is no longer available). TUF complains that I didn't provide counter evidence. Counter evidence to what? TUF's evidence is utterly fallacious. I don't need to counter non-evidence with anything. Now, even if we grant that the CJS is a failure, it's not enough to support this contention. He also has to show us that vigilantism actually improves justice. However, not one single piece of data was offered to show how vigilantism compensates for the CJS's failures. Thus, his entire argument for this contention commits the fallacy of reaching an affirmative conclusion from negative premises. AC2: The people have a right to defend the Justice system. "Mistakes are extremely detrimental to the welfare of the people and continue to harm families who have been victimized all over the country. "I agree. Mistakes in justice are detrimental, which is why due process exists in the first place. Notice how TUF repeatedly condemns my position for accepting the mistakes of the CJS without showing us that vigilantism won't make the same or worse mistakes. All throughout this debate, vigilantism is assumed to be better. This is blatant question begging. Of course, that's not what this contention is really about. This contention is about rights, and TUF does not address the issue of rights. I've argued that giving rights to one group takes freedoms from another. He agrees that due process has its place, but he ignores my highest criticism: that the right to vigilantism removes the right to due process. His only response is, "Is that not what you want as well? Justice? " Yes, but TUF never showed us that due process is less just than vigilantism, he only assumed it based upon his misguided definition that vigilantism is always just in the first place. ConclusionMy opponent has the burden of proof, as indicated in this opening round. His two contentions are circular in their reasoning, as they are based on the notion that vigilantism is always just, when it's the justness of vigilantism in question in the first place. I gave my own argument against the resolution, but it's only extra-credit on my part, as simply refuting TUF's contentions is all I need to do in order to negate the resolution. On the issue of conduct, my opponent stated that he has used external debates in the past without troubles. So be it, but this is a tournament debate and formal debates (in real life) have a time limit for a reason. Our character limit is like that time limit, and violating it gives him a distinct edge. However, I don’t really mind the character limit issue so much. I'm okay with it because he had to dedicate a portion of his opening round to rules and parameters. However, I strongly object to the alteration of his opening arguments after I made my first rebuttal as it serves to unfairly taint my cross examination in the eyes of the readers. In fact, I want back to that debate again in this round and he edited again. As of this writing, he changed his argument 4 hours prior. You will no longer be able to find his claims that "60-80% crimes go free" or that "43% of criminals with evidence to their crimes . . . go free this year. " They are gone, deleted without a trace. Not only should that factor into the conduct vote, but it should grant me the most convincing argument as well. I put a lot of time refuting arguments that were changed or removed, which makes me look worse with each edit. I insist that such tactics are no less than flat out cheating. As for sources, my opponent has exhibited very poor scholarship when it comes to his facts and figures. He repeatedly dodged my criticisms of his "60-80% crimes go free" figure (other than to delete it), which had no basis in reality. He dodged my criticism that his pie graph had zero correlation with his 43% of criminals going free figure (other than to delete it). Instead of rebutting my criticisms, he only states, "All of my data in the source is completely accurate. " Such bare assertions are not debate.