Resolution: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

My opponent offers a definition from no source. We should clearly prefer Neil Jarman's definition definition because he has written numerous books on the subject of vigilantism and would know about the subject better than any debate student or dictionary-writer. Jarman also provides a broader range of vigilante activities (both punishing and policing) and offers a more in-depth view of vigilantism. Therefore, this definition would be most educational in this round. Skewed view of justice or not, justice is still their aim. Furthermore, my opponent provides no evidence for why vigilantism is against the law, and since you cannot bring up new information in LD in later speeches, we must accept that my opponent's definition is invalid. Both my opponent and I have the same Value and VC, so there will be no debate over that. Instead we shall be seeing who better meets their Value/ VC. In my opponent's first contention, she brings up John Locke's second Treatise of Civil Government, which state that men cannot be judges in their own cases. However, vigilantes are NOT judging their own cases, but are instead judging the cases of criminals, much like the judges in today's judicial system. Though bias DOES exist in vigilantes, the same holds true for judges of the judicial court. To say that vigilantes cannot judge criminals would be equal to saying that judicial court judges cannot judge criminals. This clearly is faulty. Furthermore, My opponent states that a civil government is the remedy to the state of nature. Yet, in this resolution, the government has clearly FAILED. Therefore, vigilantism must be allowed as an response for people to protect themselves. We must see that self protection and vigilantism CAN be the same thing, for, in the process of self-protection, the person often harms the criminal. Therefore, this is equal to vigilantism where vigilantes punish criminals. In my opponent's subpoint A, she states that vigilantes act based on perception. Yet, as I stated in my definition, a vigilante upholds the laws of the previous government (Not ice the "not carried out in opposition to the former criminal justice system". Therefore, true vigilantes DO use due process because due process is part of "the law" (which my opponent accepted) that vigilantes are trying to uphold. A true vigilante group would be the Amadlozi in Port Elizabeth who uses due process to properly try and punish criminals. Furthermore, I would argue that bias exists everywhere and there is no one alive who does not carry a bit of bias in them. This makes my opponent's subpoint A irrelevant because she is basically also saying that judicial court judges are not justified because they carry bias. Clearly, vigilantes DO use due process to punish criminals and ARE justified when the government has FAILED to protect its people. In my opponent's subpoint B, she states that vigilantes have no checks. However, I would argue that vigilantes do not NEED checks as vigilantes are a form of popular sovereignty. Vigilante groups are the voices OF THE PEOPLE trying to protect themselves form the failing government. And because the PEOPLE are the true sovereigns in any society, there is no need to place a check on the people. Furthermore, in my opponent's Nicaragua example she brings up the example of a group of "gang vigilantes". If my opponent actually read that chapter of Global Vigilantes in depths, she would find that the gangs aren't actually vigilantes because they NEVER properly enforced the laws that the government set up. They "protected" the people by fighting other gangs who were on their territory and never properly tried them with due process. They also killed innocents which does not make them vigilantes. Remember that a vigilante's aim is justice, not revenge or protection of "territory" which is what the gang was doing. In my opponent's 3rd/2nd contention (do you have a 2nd contention?!!?), she brings up unjust laws. However, we must see that there were different moral views in that time period. What is immoral then is moral now, and vice versa. (For example, a girl who showed her ankles would be supposedly "enticing" a man). Furthermore, the "One Child policy" Law in China states that the government will not force parents to have abortions (I have lived in china for 7 years before I came here). My opponent is misusing information. In addition, the aim of the vigilantes is to establish JUSTICE. By upholding immoral laws, these people are not vigilantes but are instead criminals for they have violated the rights of innocents. Since my opponent does not use a CORRECT present day example of an immoral law, we must see that her example does not pertain to the resolution, which takes place in the present. My opponent's responses to my contentions (in order) 1. Social contract. -my opponent fails to argue the CRUX of my contention. My contentions states that vigilantism is a RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. my opponent provides no evidence or arguments against this, meaning that she agrees. She only brings up due process, the Constitution, etc all of which do NOT relate to my contention. My opponent states that vigilantes may think that killing a hundred people is just. This is clearly flawed because she provides no analysis for why vigilantes would think this way. Furthermore, my opponent seems to be missing a key phrase in the resolution "when the government has FAILED to enforce the law." My opponent keeps on assument that the government will somehow miraculously fix itself and uphold laws when the fact is, that it is UNABLE to enforce these laws. Therefore, my opponent has essentially dropped my first contention and she cannot bring it up again. My contention still stands. 2. Vig benefits society -My opponent does not refute my first subpoint under this contention, stating that vigilantes deter crime. In LD, silence is consent and my opponent has agreed to my first subpoint. She can never bring up this supboint again, and it will always stand in this round. Moving onto my second subpoint, my opponent believes that vigilantes will only "add fuel to fire" and escalate the chaos. This, however, is only a media-fed image of vigilantism that is based on fear. If we study vigilantism in depths world wide, we find the Amadlozi, the Guardian Angels, the Aghadi, etc who ENFORCE LAWS and PROMOTE justice. My opponent offers no REAL vigilante groups that support her point so her arguments are empty and untrue. (The Nicaragua one was not about real vigilantes). My opponent states that law enforcement officials my participate in vigilante activities. This clearly is false. If law enforcement official participated, it would no longer be vigilantism because vigilantes are private citizens with no connection to the failing government. Law enforcement officials would make it an act OF THE GOVERNMENT, not vigilantism. Clearly, vigilantes can only FILL the hole that the government has left as it is the only thing left upholding the law. As Spiderman once said, "Great power, demands great responsibility." Because the Government has clearly FAILED in its responsibility, we must affirm the resolution, and allow vigilantes to uphold the law since the law is only as strong as those who enforce it. Without vigilantes, the law would be an empty, meaningless piece of paper that few obey and follow. Clearly, in cases where the government has FAILED, vigilantism is justified because the aim of the vigilantes is justice. And when we negate the resolution, nothing is done, criminals will only learn to not fear the government, and will commit crimes without anyone to stop them. This does not uphold rights and does not achieve justice, both of which my opponent value. However, in the affirmative world, criminals are being properly punished, the law is respected, and rights are protected, ensuring justice. Therefore, I urge an affirmative vote, thank you.