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

The FBI for example, if they have a lead on someone or something, they will go after the fugitive, but they do no have real clear evidence, so my opponent says that is not condoned either VP-Justice: my opponent says it is unjust for the Vigilante to act because he is punishing suspected criminals, again this is superfluous look back to my argument, Second, I acheive Justice because the only way to achieve justice when the government has failed is through the vigilante, thus they are upholding there automic power. Since in observation B. vigilantes are part of a community they want whats best for their society VC- Protecting rights. My opponent says they over no due process rights and stuff like that, but my oppent say how we can protect our riights other than a vigilante when the government has failed. As Brazil government has failed to enforce the law thus no rights are being protected. Since no one is expresing their automic power no right are being protected OB1: My opponent says that the vigilante could prosecute when the government actually did their job. But if I Imprison you for life I am enforcing the law, so his observation falls. C1: Again it does not matter if they do it justly or not, they are doing it, and without anyone expressing their automic power there is no way for laws to be uphold when the government has failed to enforce the law. And his contetntion is so short you can not look to it. C2: Okay, so my opponent brings up an example of vigilantes that abuse the law. Firstly I would like to say if you have bad vigilante you shouldn't have vigilantes at whole. My opponent is saying if there is one bad person, we shouldn't have the group. The polic for example, I am sure that there are corrupt policemen, so my opponent is saying we should not have cops, so con is advocating an anarchy system as one advocated by the resolution. C3: My opponent is saying that the vigilante violates basic rights like privacy. But again we should still do it because if we do not it is total anarchy. My definition of vigilante: My opponent is saying we should pursure criminals because they are suspected but look to the argument on top. Ok, my opponent read my justified statement wrong. it means permissable or the best alternative which the vigilante is Extend my observation C, since my opponent did not attack it. Extend My observation B in which I bring up those 4 definitions, my 3rd one is, that vigilantes have definite goals without random violence. So this makes my opponents case fall because vigilantes dont commit random violence. My 2nd point was that vigilantes are members of a community therefore they want whats best for the society. Ok, my opponent said under my VP, I say how courts enforce justice, and he said that the government has failed to enforce the law and what I said is superfluous. But the point was that since courts ensure justice, that is why I made my Valued Premise. So my opponent did not really attack how vigilantes dont ensure justice, so you can extend my valued premise. He said against my VC he said everyone's individual definition of just differs. This does not attack my Valued Criterion because I am saying the only way to ensure justice when the government has failed is for people to express automic power. And we are not causing coruption because there are not widespread views of justice. And autonomy is the only way to ensure justice because they are the only way to enforce the law. Therefore vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law Against my contention 1 he says it is not justified because you can not prove a criminal guilty when they are suspected. Again this will lead to anarchy Extend my SBB and my Gloria Steinem saying how it does not matter if the vigilante breaks the law because it can be corrupt and that is the first step toward breaking it. This is saying that the vigilante will ultimately lead to good. Against my Brazil example he brough up his example of the bakassi boys. Again If there is one bad vigilante we should not give up vigilantes as a whole. And how would rights be upheld when the government has failed to enforce the law Extend my contention three which socrates states nothing is to be preferd before justice. Since the government has failed to enforce the law there is no way to acheive justice other than through a vigilante expressing his automic power. Thank I urge you to Affirm