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." that is not a warrant. a warrant justifies why the claim being made exists within the realm of logic;basically explaining that something is a certain way, and giving a basis of explanation as to why it is that way. the affirmative makes claims that something is a certain way, but never actually gives an explanation as to why they are that way. "you're comment about birthing a 300 pound elephant out of your anus is very offensive" I apologize if it offended you, I had been reiterating that point for the fourth time with really no response other than "my source says so." so I was trying to make my point a little more conceivable. However, I apparently failed in that respect. "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." The Affirmative never justifies this definition because for the fifth time they give no warrant as to why this definition makes sense. although the affirmative didn't literally say that vigilantes "just do" have these traits, the two words could have sufficed for the lack of warrant and absent justification. thus the definition debate here goes to the negative. "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 has automatically lost the round, because he has agreed with the affirmative side." My friend, I believe that my whole stance of this debate has a refutation against that observation, insofar as my criterion is literally a vigilantes skewed concept and perception of justice, I feel no need to line by line that, especially when you don't extend it till now. "1. Again, I state that the law is not unjust, but the way the government enforces the law is unjust." this argument goes attacked in the past three rounds, all of my arguments against this has been dropped like checks and balances, rule of law, and so forth. when the AFF simply repeats it without refuting my arguments I feel no need to attack it again. "2. I understand all of your reasons that prove the Constitution is just." Concession "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?" first, brand new arguments in the last speech are inherently abusive, but I'll bite. what incentive would it be to these people to keep this document when the are the supreme authority? and furthermore, if it is a formal document where everyone is abiding by the same rules, coming together and making decisions, and having things such as checks and balances, we aren't dealing with a group of vigilantes; We now have our own subdivision of government. "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." Not true in anyway, the affirmatives job is to prove the resolution which is a statement to be true. the resolution states "Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law." thus when the government has failed to enforce the law, for the AFF to win, they must show that vigilantism would be 100% justified in that instance. I have already given examples of how vigilantism can be unjustified, like the article that I posted in R3 about the child pornographer case. However, examples are not what the judge should be voting on, but rather if vigilantism is inherently just in this instance, or inherently unjust. t "At this point I have no idea what the neg is even talking about." I Apologize for my blunder, I meant to say Affirmative. The AFF claims that rights can sometimes be negative, such as a speedy trial, for there can be a "mistake and someone innocent can go to jail." this is a misconception of the notion of a just and speedy trial. This doesn't justify Prosecutions to go as fast as they can to get the verdict. It is simply an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibility that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself. It is reasonable to believe that Vigilantes do not have the luxuries or resources to find out who the criminal is to the extent that would provide the most accurate verdict. The affirmative's personal opinion about the war in Iraq holds no weight in this debate round. George Bush entered the war because of intelligence data indicating that Iraq had WMD's. I contend your viewpoint very intensely, but that is another debate for another day. "Vigilantes would not try to abuse their power. Again, they are trying to better the society, not hurt it." The affirmative's personal opinions about what they think Vigilantes will do, or their intentions, again holds no weight in this debate round. vigilantes are humans and as such are fallible. "How is a mob mentality legitimate" because legitimate denotes something that is real in nature. The mob mentality theory has been substantiated by numerous psychologists. "You never even responded to my attack about how vigilantes so not have the proper resources they need" I believe I did, with the notion that there are entire subdivisions of arguments appropriated for law enforcement. 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 misconstrued what you said, I apologize. however, the supreme court example still applies. "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." that statement proves that the affirmative has a flawed concept of justice. this is cowboy justice at it's extreme, and is similar to the scenario that we would have in a world where we Affirm. Funny that this scenario is concerning a group of vigilantes trying to establish their own conception of justice. My opponent defines justice as "to prove or show to be what is just by the maintenance or administration of what is just based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, and equity" how is it ethical, rational, fair, or equal that a man who had problems ten years before this incident has his wife murdered right in front of him. Vigilantes burnt down his house, they killed his wife, because of something they saw on a tracking website. this is not justice for him, but furthermore, it's not justice to his wife, or his children, or anyone who knew that woman. VOTERS: 1. The Criterion debate is won by the NEG, my attacks against autonomy get grievously dropped by my opponent, and autonomy was never really extended throughout the debate. my Criterion of a vigilante's skewed concept of justice prevails as it negates autonomy, and holds to be true as my opponent and I both agree that vigilantes are humans and work by their own conception of justice. 2.All AFF offense at this point is either untopical or void. 3. The Affirmative is unresponsive to the majority of the arguments made on case. 4. The Affirmative substantiates the notion in the last speech that their concept of justice is severely fallacious and is not found within the parameters of their very own justice definition. With all said and done you must negate.