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

That is my warrant. LD debate is philosophy debate, meaning that I am debating based on my opinion. The American University Law Review is a trustworthy source, and I form a lot of my opinions from its information. Also, you're comment about birthing a 300 pound elephant out of your anus is very offensive, and that is bad conduct. I never stated that vigilantes "just do" have the characteristics I described in my observation. I have been able to justify this definition, so it still stands. My opponent has failed to attack my first observation, where I clearly state that in the resolution, the government is not upholding the law, meaning the vigilante is upholding and enforcing the law in a justified way. My opponent's failure to attack shows that he completely agrees with this observation meaning that he has agreed with the affirmative. My opponent has automatically lost the round, because he has agreed with the affirmative side. I have asked my opponent about what makes the government's way of enforcing the law just. He are my responses to his answers: 1. Again, I state that the law is not unjust, but the way the government enforces the law is unjust. 2. I understand all of your reasons that prove the Constitution is just. Well, what proof do you have that a certain vigilante group doesn't have a similar document to help to make sure everything is just? If the government is just because of their document that provides justice, then so is the vigilante committee. And before you say that even if one group did have such a document, not all groups do, I will point out that the resolved does not state that all vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law, so you can assume that some vigilantism can be justified and win the debate. And to this you may state that this can work the other way around, but I haven't proved a single example of vigilantism to be unjustified. 3. If the government has so many subdivisions to enforce the law, then why aren't all laws enforced? Why are some criminals free? To your next response, if there are so many processes that make sure the accused is guilty before punishing them, then why are so many innocents charged and punished for a crime they didn't do? "At this point I have no idea what the neg is even talking about." The fact that you don't understand your own case makes me urge an affirmative ballot even more. At times these rights can be unjust. For example, when the government enforces the law they have the Right to Speedy Trial. This rush in convicting the criminal can cause a mistake and someone innocent can go to jail. It's not just for an innocent to go to prison in place of a guilty criminal. Vigilantes do not preserve this right; they spend as much time as they need to make sure they know who the criminal is. "Furthermore vigilantes are people who enforce THE LAW that means that whatever the laws are that have been pre-determined the vigilantes are to enforce THAT LAW." This is not necessary. I never said that laws are unjust, I said the government's way of enforcing laws is unjust. I was saying that even in your imaginary situation that would never happen, the vigilante would not be violent unless it was necessary. Again, to your excuse that checks would keep the government officials from doing something unjust: Many people have had something unjust done to them by government officials who haven't faced consequences. For example, George G. Bush started a war in Iraq because he suspected Iraqis to be terrorists. Millions of people have died, billions of dollars have been wasted, and for what? Nothing has come out of the war, but George W. Bush is not in jail. He has not faced any consequences. Vigilantes would not try to abuse their power. Again, they are trying to better the society, not hurt it. Legitimate is defined as accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements. How is a mob mentality legitimate? You never even responded to my attack about how vigilantes so not have the proper resources they need, meaning you agree with me. You can not use that argument if you agree with me. What ensures you that vigilantes have an arbitrary view of the justice system? Governments are also made up of human beings, so they are also corruptible. "The law" is made up of many separate laws and when the vigilante tries to enforce a single law they are helping to enforce "the law". How do you know that these people do not have a skewed view of justice? Also, when I said "When the country was founded, British Common Law applied to Jury Trial and the jury had the power to "nullify" a law it felt unjust or unjustly applied by refusing to convict." the country that was founded was the United States of America. I'm not even going to waste time in this argument, since it doesn't matter. I believe the law is just, but I don't believe the way the government enforces the law is just. Vigilantes are going to investigate first to make sure they are punishing the right person. I do NOT have a flawed conception of justice, the man was punished through the death of his wife. He probably won't ever commit a crime again, because he has learned from his mistake. So, from this debate we have learned that vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law. As an overview of the cases: My opponent and I have the same value. My value criterion, upholding autonomy better upholds justice that my opponent's value criterion, vigilante's skewed concept of justice. When the government fails to enforce the law it is a citizen's duty to then protect their own rights by exercising their autonomy. My contentions are superior to my opponent's contentions because they better uphold the value criterion, value, and resolution. I urge an affirmative ballot because: - The negative dropped many arguments. - He failed to attack all aspects of my case. - He didn't respond to many of my attacks. - The affirmative responded to all of the negative's arguments. - She attacked all aspects of her opponent's case. - She responded to all of her opponent's attacks. - The affirmative had better conduct, better spelling and grammar, made more convincing arguments, and had more reliable sources.