resolved: vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I will respond to his arguments and counter arguments. -------------------------------------------------responses to contentions 1, 2 & 3------------------------------------------------- My opponent has stated that the mind or way of thinking of a vigilante is unjust and biased. Vigilantes punish criminals of the law in an unfair and irrational manner. Therefore, vigilantes fail to preserve justice and effect citizens and the government. However, unfair punishment and irrational measurements spur through the police and law enforcement agencies as well. Historian Richard Marxwell Brown documented more than 5,400 deaths caused by organized law enforcement agencies between 1767 and 1951. There have also been well over 10,000 deaths due to irresponsible and unjust behavior of law enforcement. These agencies are part of the government and clearly fail to uphold human rights as well as justice. Like I have stated in contention 2, the people have the right of self defense. Vigilantism is the only moral method in order to defend against corruption within the government and anything that harms the people. Therefore they uphold human rights as well as justice. May I also remind the audience of the Rodney King beating. Rodney King was a victim of police brutality which resulted with massive injuries and other medical conditions. These police officers, being part of the government, did not uphold justice and instead were biased and went about their actions according to their irrational way of thinking. Vigilantism does not necessarily mean a civilian goes out and massacres criminals. Vigilantism can even be a group of civilians who formed their own government and pursue their duties to uphold human rights. For example, the colonial times in North America. Great Britain sent colonists to North America with a vision of it being New England. King George taxed these colonists unreasonably which lead to war. The English Government was non-legitimate because they did not uphold justice. Groups of vigilantes aided the Continental Army of the colonists with the intention of being an independent nation which by the way was obviously successful. If it were not for these vigilantes, the United States, a strong nation of justice, would not exists. In that case, vigilantism was necessary and moral. Therefore being just. Therefore preserving human rights such as independence. His third contention stated that vigilantism effects the citizens and the government negatively. However, in the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law. By the government failing to uphold its end of the compact, it effects the peoples' protection. The lack of obligation of the government to preserve justice is questionable indeed. Therefore, people have the human right to defend themselves from anything harmful to them, for example a non-legitimate government. Because the government failed to provide for the peoples' protection, the people defend themselves, preserving human rights, preserving justice. ----------------------------------------Response to 1st argument on justice----------------------------------------------------- Like stated above, police fail to preserve justice, therefore failing to uphold human rights. Just because someone is a police officer does not necessarily mean he or she will preserve human rights and justice. Like for example, Rodney King. In the resolution, the government has failed to enforce the law. Because the government has failed, it has revealed lack of obligation. Even if the obligation were still there and the government were to then after, enforce the law, it does not matter. The resolution states, the government has failed. The event of failure has taken place like said in my first observation. The only event that matters in this debate is the one taking place in the resolution which would be the government's failure to enforce the law. Therefore, any argument referring to the government enforcing the law is eliminated because it does not exist in the resolution. ------------------------------------------------response to 2nd argument on justice--------------------------------------------- I have given examples in my responses to your contentions. ------------------------------------------------response to 3rd argument on justice---------------------------------------------- People deserve protection. Mostly, people would rely on their government with a little intention of providing it on their own when necessary. Because the government cannot provide protection for the people, the people protect themselves because they deserve it. Just like they deserve justice, security, and human rights. Human rights, like said in my VC, are a standard of justice. Any argument that states that people do not deserve or are not allowed to have these rights, fails to uphold justice. Therefore failing to win the value. -------------------------------------------------response to 1st argument on MPHR---------------------------------------------- I explained the unjust behavior of law enforcement agencies. Therefore explaining what happens to criminal justice. Like my opponent stated, no government is perfect. This is true with everything. Regardless of who punishes them, not all criminals are granted fair treatment because of our irrational intentional behavior against them. Even some forms of punishment against them. Like for example the death penalty being an unjust law. However, if a vigilantes were to simply kill their victims, using your knowledge, then most criminals would simply stop breaking the law. It is basically the idea of fear. Therefore preserving security among the people because no one or at least a very very minimal amount of people would break the law. ----------------------------------------------Response to 2nd argument on MPHR----------------------------------------------- Countered through out my responses. ---------------------------------------------Response to 2nd argument on my 1st contention----------------------------------- The government that was dissolved like Locke and Ayyildiz explained, is no more. It is then up for the people to re establish their own protection even if it means constructing their own government, but never reshaping their old one. Basically the situation would be a non-legitimate government being replaced by a new one formed by vigilantes which is in fact justified. Protecting their well-being is all part of human rights which is a standard of justice, Elizabeth Ayyildiz explained. Because the government cannot protect the people, the people then protect themselves. Any argument that disputes this fails to win the value. ---------------------------------------------Response to argument on my 2nd contention--------------------------------------- My 2nd contention is not restricting the right of self defense to defending from a non-legitimate government. Self defense in general, protecting yourself from anything harmful to your well-being. It is not vengeance. My argument was not about the government defending themselves, it was about the people defending themselves. Therefore, no contradiction there. -----------------------------------------Response to 1st argument on my 3rd contention-------------------------------------- Like stated in my response to your first argument on justice, the government has indeed a lack of obligation to protect its people. The only event that matters is the one taking place in the resolution which is the government's failure to enforce the law. ----------------------------------------response to 2nd argument on my 3rd contention---------------------------------------- countered in my responses to all your contentions. Thank you! Negative may proceed.