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

I will address my opponent's arguments in the order that he provided them. My Value of Justice: He first claims that because a vigilante cannot provide for justice everywhere he/she thus cannot provide for justice anywhere. This is a moot point. It is impossible to completely provide justice everywhere in this world. Thus this does not detract from a vigilante's form of justice and in the end actually justifies his/her actions. My opponent then provides an example of incorrect vigilantism in the nation of Nigeria. He claims that the actions of this group are unjust due to their blatent disregard for human rights. I have several problems with this argument. First of which is that these insurgents are not true vigilantes. A true vigilante is one who is not given the responsibility of upholding the law, but does so without detracting from human rights. Any vigilante who does not meet these criterion is not a valid vigilante but is instead a criminal against humanity and justice needs to be exercised upon him. Next is the fact that if this Nigerian group were not in existence then that country would be in a lot worse shape than it is in now. It would have effectivley become a government of reverse law (a government that basically violates all rules set to it and nothing can be done within the nation to stop this. Out side influence is needed). We must see that this group may not be valueing human rights but is still preventing a much further violation of human rights. Vigilantism is still needed, just in a more human-rights-valueing way. His example is one of crime not vigilantism. That nation needs proper vigilantes rather than criminals that are already there. My Criterion of Social Contract: He claims that the vigilante is not the government and thus social contract does not apply. This is false. Social Contract is an ideology. When the govenment fails to uphold the law then it ceases to be a part of the social contract. Vigilantes rise up out of the population to fill the position of government in that contract by enforcing the law. Any body that enforces the law and protects the rights of others is the proverbial government and thus Social Contract does apply. Furthermore it stands as proof that vigilantes are neccessary to fill the need in Social Contract. If it is not filled then the government becomes anarchy and we can both agree that anarchy is the worst case senario. Thus vigilantes uphold my criterion of Social Contract. I will bring up the consequences of him accepting my definitions. He makes no arguement against my 1st contention claiming it is irrelevent. This is false. The phrase that I pointed out requires that there be something to replace the failed government. If not vigilantes then who? That is my opponent's responsibility. To prove that there is a more just way of dealing with a failed government. This he has not done. I will cross apply this rubbuttle with my attack on his 3rd contention as he did so also. He used an incorrect definition of the word 'prosecute' to attack my 3rd contention. By definition 'prosecute' means to pursue or to attack. Thus the vigilante is capable of doing so. In responce to his claim against my fourth contention I will say this: that vigilantes strive to fix the current government by 'altering' it. Revelutionaries strive to destroy the old one and establish a new one. Thus vigilantes are not revelutionaries. Now on to my opponent's case. His value is that of justice (it is mine also). He claims it is meant for a society as a whole more so that for the individual. But this is false. If you cannot provide justice to individuals then it is impossible to attain that justice on a societal scale and thus you see a society willing to oppress its individuals in order to do the suppossed 'overall good'. In reality we must first provide justice to individuals and by doing so on a large scale you inadvertantly provide justice on a large scale. His criterion is that of the protection of rights. He claims that vigilantes offer no protection of certain rights. I addressed this in my defence of my value of Justice. Again I repeat, if we don't have vigilantes then the alternative is even worse. A government that fails to uphold those same rights. My opponent claims that "However, the government's motivation for failing to enforce the law is not addressed, nor is it implied in the wording of the topic. There are many potential reasons why a government may fail to enforce the law." By saying this my opponent claims that the government's failure is acceptable. This is purely an ill-founded idea. The government's utmost responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens, according to Social Contract, and no other thing should come before this, thus the government has no just reason to leave off the protection of rights. His first contention is this: "Vigilantes abuse the rights of the accused." He threads this down into two sub-points: 1. "Vigilantes lack procedural safeguards" He claims that there is nothing to keep vigilantes from violating the rights of others. But if you look at the alternatives, you will see that not allowing vigilantes is a much worse threat to human rights than the possibility of misguided vigilantism. Without them there will definitely be no protection of those rights. Since there is not perfection in this system then we must look to the more reasonable answer: vigilantism. 2. "Vigilante violence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment" He summarized this point by saying that, "This is saying that because vigilantes act out of moral outrage their rage will lead to unnecessary violence committed against the accused." I respond to this by saying that this is purely stipulation. Also I refer you to my argument against the sub-point A of this contention. His second contention is this: "Vigilantism creates a culture of violence" He states that when an individual chooses to ignore a law that he defrading the respect of law in general. This is a typical logical falacy known as the 'slippery slope' argument. Our government is actually throwing away old law and creating new law every year. This 'flexibility' of our government is what keeps us alive as a nation. We put the protection of justice above the entity of the law. This is the basic principle of vigilantism and has worked out for America so far. My opponent claims that we should not allow vigilantism because of its violent nature. While I agree with the fact that most acts of vigilantism are violent, we must remember that in the case of this resolution it is duely needed due to inadequacy of the government. If we allow the degredation of rights in the name of peace we are a delusional society. The protection of rights in the face of a failed government, even if through violence, is a just cause, without exception. He also brings up this statement: "This is saying that vigilante violence leads to weakened governments which will lead to larger amounts of violence, in communities." This is a moot statement since the government implied by the resolution is already a royal failure and cannot complete its utmost duty. He has posted his third contention on the comments page and thus I will answer it in the same manner. thank you.