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

You're first attack was that vigilantes are not a political authority and I responded and you seem to agree. You continuously state that vigilantism is unjust, biased. What makes the government unbiased? How do you know that their checks and due process are just? ." My first attack was not that vigilantes are not a political authority. it was that you do not warrant how vigilantes simply ARE the things which you claim within the parameters of your definition, like "established members of communities. no definition that you have given really stipulates or implies that, nor do you warrant why that is. the government is bound to a constitution, they have different branches that provide checks and balances . constitutions, such as the U.S. constitution ensure that there are fundamental rights that are being preserved regardless of the circumstances. governmental entities must respect those rights by law. vigilantes are not bound to such laws as they become the ultimate governing authority in the land. " I have already addresses mob mentalities in the argument before this" you stated that vigilantes are only to provide maintenance for the law. so if a group of vigilantes is going to out "take suspected criminals and punishes them" because that is what they do, how does this somehow stray away from mob mentalities. lets say a riot breaks loose in an urban city. if we affirm, we literally have a group of vigilantes fighting a group of other angry individuals, with no rules, no boundaries, just flat out war. This ties in with the same argument I've been making this whole round, vigilantes are not tied to the law or to any other facility that might have a check on them, thus they do whatever that is in their means to stop the crime in progress, or punish those who may have already committed the crime. they simply do not have the means, or checks and balances on them to give justice. furthermore, if a group of vigilantes were to get together and form an alliance or a union of some sort, they are the ultimate authority over the people, thus the law is further eroded to what the vigilantes feel is more beneficial for them rather than the people, and enforce those laws. the government cannot enforce the law anymore, so they cannot place a check on the power of the vigilantes. "Punishing the criminal is not the only way to enforce the law. Just reporting a criminal is vigilantism, because they 1. Are members of an organized committee 2. Are established members of a community 3. Proceed with definite goals, not with the intention of random violence 4. Act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system." For the third time, what warrants such things? furthermore how would that example be relevant to this debate when there is no effective law enforcement branch to enforce those laws? "Again, what makes the law, the constitution, due process all just? " if your theory is that the law is unjust, then we MUST negate, as the vigilante is defined as someone who is enforcing THE LAW. enforcing an unjust law on citizens would be an act of complete INJUSTICE, meaning that the resolution would be therefore negated. the constitution would be astronomically more just than the arbitrary decisions made by vigilantes because: A.) it is consistent B.) it was made by those who represent their constituents, and even the constituents themselves, meaning that it is what the society that is governed by it feels is just. C.)The lone purpose of a constitution is to assign what rights are protected and what power goes where, thus reserving rights and placing checks on law enforcement. "If they are wrongly convicted then released, why would the vigilante try to punish them?" The vigilante does not have the means of investigation, the convince or time of getting accurate witness statements, or the resources to have a trial. therefore, being released would probably not happen in the first place. I believe you misconstrued the argument I was making. furthermore the vigilante does probably not have the means, let alone the will to contain such a person. "A vigilante group cannot be faulted because they do not have all the resources, but it's not like the government has all the resources in the world." they have entire subdivisions of government dedicated to law enforcement, the resources found within the government are going to exponentially more than that of the average citizen's. "What proof do you have that all vigilantes' perception of justice is subjective and fallible?" because a vigilante is a human being. "What is the difference between what the government see as just and what the vigilantes see as just?" government is bounded by laws and checks. "LD debate is philosophy debate, and this is what I believe to be the traits of a vigilante. Vigilantes are citizens that try to enforce the law, and anything else by observation states." Why does your personal opinion of a vigilante matter in this debate round? or warrant that observation? "Whether or not the law is just or unjust is an aspect of this debate, and the fact that you don't want to debate whether or not it is shows that you do think that the government can be unjust. " Unless you prefer to concede the debate right now, we must assume that the laws being enforce are just, as vigilantes are those who enforce the law, as I have stated previously. "You can't include something in the debate if it has nothing to do with the resolved. Again, yes one example of just vigilantism is enough to affirm since you haven't been able to bring up one example of unjust vigilantism." It has everything to do with the debate if you understand the concept of an analogy. I'm trying to show you how showing one time where vigilantism worked does not warrant a ballot, and is entirely fallacious. we are debating on whether the resolved is absolutely True or False. Here's an example of how vigilantism has failed http://www.msnbc.msn.com... the story is that two men wanted to scare this child pornographer away from their neighborhood to get back at him for all of those horrible things he had done to children. they set fire to his house. however, the accused man escaped inside, leaving his innocent wife inside alone to die. this is an example of exactly what I've been advocating this whole round, vigilantes skewed concept of justice, the lack of means of which they have to justly prosecute the accused. "If you're saying that those vigilantes were biased then you're saying that the government is biased too. The government is made up of citizens and they just may as well be biased against one of the criminals because they stole something from them. You never know." what a society decides is collective of that society. what a vigilante decides is not. in the rare, rare chance that a police officer or government official is to be the one who apprehends that sort of a suspect, there are still several other processes of which the accused goes through before a decision of his/her punishment is made. "The fact that you admit that your attack on my third contention had nothing to do with the Social Contract shows that you agree with it. This attack should have been placed in a different area" the social contract argument is flawed, insofar as its basically like repeating the resolution and asking for the win. in this argument your saying that the government has failed to enforce the law, thus vigilantes must. that is what we are here to debate, whether that is justified or not. that contention really holds no offense once-so-ever for the affirmative. because vigilantes cannot and do not ensure the means for adequate justice, have a skewed concept of justice, and because the AFF can in no way justify their arguments or criterion. vote neg. thanks.