Vigilantism *Official Tier Tournament: Round 1*

PrologueI apologize for the missed round. Family visited over the weekend and I lost track of time. However, Con seems to be confused about the rules. The second rule is "No new arguments in Round 4." "New arguments" are arguments that are new, and have not been previously mentioned or discussed. Obviously, this rule does not prohibit rebuttals of old, previously-mentioned arguments. My opponent has spent a significant amount of time debating on this site, and surely knows that "no new arguments" does not mean "no final rebuttals."You will notice that there is no rule granting an automatic victory in the event of a forfeited round, so I would humbly request that voters continue to read the debate and award points based on the merit of arguments and rebuttals. I am sorry for reducing the number of rounds available for argument, but it hardly matters since Con's case is essentially unwinnable.RebuttalsCon's "Framework"Con resorts to ad hominem by criticizing my motivations and intentions: "I fear that Pro is trying to spike out of having any debate at all through semantic gymnastics." It does not matter what Con fears my intentions are, the debate is no place to voice such slander. Later on in his "framework", Con again villainizes me by stating that the debate is "not a game of whether Pro was clever enough to write loopholes into the Resolution", and by accusing me of "creating a misleading Resolution and sniping a semantic victory". I would like to point out that accusations such as these are an attempt to sway readers emotionally. My opponent could have easily expressed his frustration with the direction of the debate without making unfounded accusations, and the fact that he feels misled by the resolution does not make it generally or intentionally misleading.Now I will examine some of the statements Con makes in his opening:"I fear that Pro is trying to spike out of having any debate at all through semantic gymnastics."I don't believe my argument required any "gymnastics". If a literal, straightforward interpretation and application of resolutions and definitions is gymnastics, then call me Mary Lou Retton."...a 'moral point of view' does not equate to any point of view within a moral system."Yes, it does. A point of view that falls within the boundaries of a moral system is a moral point of view, by definition. Any points of view one might have that conflict with one's moral system would be considered "immoral" by that individual."Per R1, it is a point of view 'concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct...'i.e. we must evaluate the resolution from the perspective of right conduct..."It is important to note that Con makes this statement with an assumption in mind: the assumption that there is an objective "right conduct". More on that later."Prefer my interpretations because it offers both sides fair ground and will generate a more educational debate by actually testing how both side’s arguments stack up."I'm not sure what "interpretations" Con is referring to, but that hardly matters. The only "interpretations" that matter are those that are drawn directly from the resolution and definitions, as mine are. It doesn't matter if Con feels that diverging from these will somehow improve the debate or make things more fun for him. I am debating the resolution. If my opponent didn't like the resolution, he shouldn't have accepted the debate."...the Resolution requires a defense of the universal justifiability of vigilantism in all cases where the government has failed to enforce the law."I agree. The resolution of this debate is not "Vigilantism is morally justified..." The resolution is "Vigilantism is morally justifiable...""If justifiability of vigilantism is dependent on a subjective perspective, then there are cases where vigilantism is unjustifiable..."There could possibly be a time when vigilantism is morally unjustified, e.g. a time when every person in the world believes that vigilantism is wrong. There could not, however, be a time when vigilantism is morally unjustifiable, because at any point in time one of those people could change their mind, i.e. their subjective opinion. Vigilantism is always "able to be morally justified" because subjective morals are always capable of change."The bottom line is Pro is trying to reduce the Resolution to triviality..."Is the subjectivity of morality really a triviality? Whether it is or not, I have not "reduced the resolution". My arguments are direct extensions of the resolution."...by arguing around the topic of this debate."Con may not like my arguments, but that doesn't mean they are not topical. On the contrary, they address the core issue when arguing about the moral justifiability of anything, including vigilantism."...my reading is grammatically better..."I disagree. I don't see how my argument in any way suggested a grammatical misreading.Now I will rebut Con's arguments:1. "Subjectivism fails to justify ANY moral claim"Basically, this argument denies that subjective morals can justify anything, implying that only objectivity can be a basis for justification. This argument assumes that justification itself is not subjective. This is incorrect, considering that justification without a conditional modifier is meaningless. Obviously, moral justification is subjective, as it is dependant on the morals and opinions of the one making the judgment.Con says, "A claim is shown to by (sic) right by its reasonable justification, so any sound justification will result in a right conclusion. Since Subjectivism yields conflicting claims, we know that at least some of the claims are not correct." On the contrary, we cannot know that. Whether a moral claim is "reasonable", "sound", or "right" is also subjective, meaning that, whether different claims conflict or not, none are necessarily right or wrong.For example, let's say I think classical music is most beautiful, while you think reggae music is most beautiful. These are conflicting claims. Does a conflict of claims require that one of us be wrong? Obviously, neither of us is "right" and neither of us is "wrong" because these claims are based on subjective opinions. Morality works the same way. Without a framework of conditions, conflicting moral claims are equally valid because they are subjective opinions.2. "Moral statements cannot be justified because... they cannot be true or false"a. "Moral statements... do not make claims which are either true or false."Here, Con agrees that morals are subjective. He is right in saying that morals are neither true nor false, but he is wrong in concluding that they can't be justified. He is missing the subjectivity of justification. By my subjective, personal morals, I can justify anything to myself, and you can do the same by your morals. Moral justification is as subjective as the morals of the one making the judgment.b. "The Open Question..."This argument does more to strengthen my case than it does Con's, as it demonstrates the subjectivity of values such as "good", "right", and "moral". Thus, justification based on a subjective value, such as morals, will inherently be subjective.c. "There is no satisfactory account of what it means for moral statements to be true."This debate is not about the "truthfulness" of moral statements (whatever that means); it is about whether moral statements can be used to justify vigilantism. I have no need to debate the meaning of "truth", as truthfulness is not applicable to moral justification."Moral Systems"Con says, "...to prove that... moral systems justify... Pro must justify the moral system itself." This statement betrays a misunderstanding of the resolution that permeates Con's arguments. He is using "justify" as if it stands alone, and can be proven or disproven alone. However, justification must always be accompanied by a modifier or condition. For instance, if you were to ask, "Is vigilantism justified?" I would have to ask, "In what way or by what?" You would need to condition the justification with modifiers such as Biblically, legally, by the Bro Code, etc. Justification is a slave to it's modifiers.In this debate's case, the conditional modifier is "morally". I do not have to justify a moral system by some other modifier in order to show that vigilantism can be justified morally. Because moral justification is subjective, whether or not a moral system can be Biblically justified, legally justified, etc. does not change the fact that vigilantism can be justified within the framework of that moral system.I do not have to prove that any currently held moral opinions support vigilantism in order to prove that vigilantism is able to be justified morally. Again the resolution is "morally justifiable", not "morally justified". As long as it is feasible that a moral opinion could be formed in support of vigilantism, vigilantism is able to be morally defended. However, just for fun, here is a link to a poll in which 79.11% of voters answered "Yes" to the question, "Is Vigilantism Ever Moral?" http://www.mmo-champion.com...Apparently, at least 178 members of mmo-champion.com have a moral code in which vigilantism is at least sometimes justified. Remember, if even one person could ever believe that vigilantism is moral, then vigilantism is able to be morally justified, a.k.a. is morally justifiable.ConclusionIn the end, the whole debate comes down to this:A1: Morals are subjective.A2: Moral justification is based on morals.B1: Moral justification is subjective.B1: Moral justification is subjective.B2: Subjective attitudes can be applied to vigilantism.C1: Vigilantism can be morally justified.C1: Vigilantism can be morally justified.C2: Something that can be morally justified is morally justifiable.D1: Vigilantism is morally justifiable.I commend Con on the effort put into his arguments, but they ultimately come up short. Thank you, readers and voters, for your time and attention.