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

1. Okay, we'll start with your gender. You stated that "Everything my opponent said in his last speech should be dropped because he improperly addressed my sexuality, and it is therefore difficult to decide who exactly he was talking to." You were purposefullly misleading in your picture, and did not point out until the final round of your sex. Second of all, I made the same reference to you when I said 'she' everytime. Which is to say, I did not call someone else 'she', only you. So I blame you for misleading me and not telling me of your sex or correcting my mistake until it was most convienent for you. 2. You stated that "criminals are looking to get away with these crimes is because the external method is driving this state of mind." If it envokes even the slightest bit of fear in criminals, then it obviously works, and you therefore agree with my arguement. 3. I expressed that vigilantism is "popular soveirgnty", which also is a form of democratic government, because the people are the sovierginty. I support vigiliantism in groups, and have made my claim to that by stating that it is the beginning of a revolution which has a plan to fix the failing justice system, as stated in the debate topic. As for "popular soverity", I will rebutt your points honestly make no sense to me. a) "It is a new argument" No, we are still debating the same arguement that "vigilantism is justified..." This is just a new claim/point, and one that you failed to refute, so I can only assume that you accept it. b)"It is unwarrented" It is warrented because group vigilantism IS popular soverignty, and also a form of democratic government. (Black Laws Dictionary defines Government-A system that has the power to enforce...and execute laws). c) "It is irrelevant" It is not irrelivant because I am associating it with Vigilantism, which you would have to prove that it DOESN'T associate itself with vigilantism, which you also failed to do. "So my opponent makes the claim that vigilantism DOES work. Unfortunately, he provides NO WARRANT for this claim, which means everything he said falls already. He just says "It works!" but I can say "The sky is green", it doesn't mean it is true." I did not say anywhere (and I beg you to point out). that vigilantism works, but it is better that maintaining the failing system that does work, because vigilantism is a rift between old governments and new governments, which better serve society. So your point of " the affirmative fails to change the status quo, which is the entire purpose of the affirming the resolution!" Is benign (doesn't go anywhere). "Vigilantes don't get any more evidence than a court case, in fact, it is downright illogical and impractical to assume that a vigilante will round up a forensic team, an investigative team and all other personnel required to analyze a crime scene!" You said yourself that the people of the court do not know what really happened, because they weren't there. WELL VIGILANTES WERE THERE! So they do have more information than the justice system. You also said "MY OPPONENT IGNORES OVER 95% OF CRIMINALS CASES." That's because not many cases involve vigilantism, and I'm focusing on ones that do. Okay, to keep it brief, I'm right, and he (no gender malfunction there) is wrong. For my opponents faulty arguements and my clear affirmation, I urge you to vote...however you want, but I would prefer you voted for me. Have a good day and thanks for the debate.