Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the Government has failed to Enforce Laws.

Rebuttal First Point Subpoint A - " the government is illegitimate and without any de facto power" - No. Just because in one case your vigilante believes justice wasn't served this doesn't mean that government is illegitimate. I can say this because I disagree with your definition of Justice and would like to suggest my own. Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Since the concept of justice is based upon morality it is a personal and subjective concept. Meaning that one persons version of justice is different to the next. Therefore a vigilante can never ever fulfill justice because he is acting in his own moral compass he is acting for himself not for the society he apparently wants to protect. Subpoint B - "Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it." The social contract works in that the people give power to the government so that they can provide protection for their people. This arrangement is indeed subjective. However it is only subjective when it is the collective belief of the people that the laws should be changed. Not the act of a lone man seeking to fulfill his own justice based on his own moral compass. We also don't need to break the laws in order for them to change we just need to speak as the people and speak loud enough to be heard and long enough to be listened to. Second point - "From this we can conclude that the only hope of justice in Brazil comes from vigilantism" If you disagree with the structure of the government to the extent that vigilante takes over then all we are left with is anarchy in which no law and no justice can ever take place. The only hope society has of maintaining a strong justice system is by having a strong government. It may be a slower solution but it is a better one and leads to far less crime than vigilante can ever hope to achieve. Third point - "But even when the law fails, justice must still be upheld nevertheless" Outside of the law justice becomes even more subjective because it falls into the hands of the morals of those who label themselves vigilantes. A vigilante as I have said can only ever fulfill his own view of justice not societies justice. "When the British were overtaxing the colonists, the colonists decided to revolt. This action stemmed from the colonists' sense of autonomy within them and their goal of justice." This is not a vigilante act because it is a society acting to rearrange their governing body in line with the social contract. They disagreed with the ruling and moved against that ruling as a society. A vigilante is lone actor seeking to fulfill his own justice not acting in line with the social contract. This makes your last statement, "Thus, it is seen that vigilantism ultimately leads to justice in any society, and so vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.", false. Substantive Point one - There is a women called Mags Haney who is a heroine dealer along with most of her family and she started a vigilante streak by naming and shaming people she thought were pedophiles. What she actually done was name a lot of innocent people and ruin their lives. She claimed she done this because she loved her children so much. Vigilantism is not the only route to justice and it is not the best route therefore not vigilante is ever justified in his/her actions. I'll stop here for the moment as I am running out of time.