Mafias are not all bad.

After reading his second round, I still maintain the Con position and will rebut my opponent's first contention fully. 1) My opponent is not Special Agent Gibbs so I will not concede the debate. 2) I will accept my opponent's expanded definition to include the street gangs I listed as mafias, making my job a lot easier. 3) I will take the definitions my opponent provides, but "safer streets" has more connotations than just the ability of a person to walk from street A to street B without being mugged. I wish to expand the definition to include an area (streets, homes, businesses) where crime, in general, is less likely and the citizens can carry on day to day life with less fear of criminal activity than on "unsafe streets". Testimonial from Thomas Sowell. 1T) Despite the lack of a link or reference to this writing, I accept its accuracy. My opponent need not provide a link as I stipulate the statement is probably true and it sounds very much like something Mr. Sowell would write, but the statement is not necessarily true for the reasons Mr. Sowell gives. In reference to an Italian/Sicilian style mafia: 2T) Despite the truth of his statement, Mr. Sowell does not tell the reader whether the Newsstand owner must pay a fee to the local boss for this added protection. Nor does he write whether the newsstand is used to launder illegal earnings for the Mafia, making the owner a criminal and an enabler for the mob. Also, the newsstand owner must worry if the local boss's dealings with the union will prevent him from hiring another person to help with his business at a reasonable wage with a method of redress. In addition, the thugs, outside the mafia, do not necessarily avoid committing crimes in the area due to a fear that the victim will be a relative of a mafia boss, they avoid the area because the boss controls the criminal activity and any mugging ring or drug operation must be made with the permission of the local boss. The boss can protect his family by running the operation. The mob does not care about the victims of crimes, they just want a cut of the profits. The mafia organizes the crime in the area, it does not prevent it. If my opponent has contentions with the acts I listed, I can cite sources, but my opponent appears knowledgable about a Italian/Sicilian style mafia and must know all the acts I listed are part in parcel to these organizations. I will provide links if my opponent requests them, as examples are abundant. EXAMPLE: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(extortion) Black Hand extortion is more subtle now, but the practice involves committing crimes and then offering protection from further crimes to the victims for a fee. The fee could include low level mafia work, partial stake in a business, allowing a business to be used as a front for illegal activities, or just plain old money per month. The perpetrator and the protector are one in the same. Paying a criminal organization to not commit crimes against a citizen is not protection as the money paid will never be enough and the extortion victim has little means of redress as one of the more popular tactics used by the Sicilian mafia is bribery of public officials, witness intimidation, jury tampering and simple assassination. (Again, ample sources are available if my opponent has contention with these acts) 3T) A mafia controlled area, or the living space for a boss also invites rivals. One way a member can promote his position in the mafia is by killing the guy above him. The tactics include public shootings and car bombs. Bullets and explosions do not make for safer streets. In addition, the mafia does business with other criminals who have little concern for the people around the area. My Opponent's example: 1E) "Now, let's say that you lived next to a caporegime for a mafia. You wouldn't ever be touched by a criminal on the street, because there would be no criminals on the street, because they wouldn't dare mug you or anyone else on the street, due to the high chance that you could be the caporegime's nephew. " There would be criminals in the street and one very big one living next door. The big difference is the criminals will work for the under boss; this does not include the rival criminals wanting to kill him. Depending on the size of the neighborhood, the chances of being related to the under boss may well be small and my opponent assumes the mugger knows of the under boss, and assumes the criminal is capable of making informed decisions. Conclusion: Examining the totality of the circumstances, a caporegime does not make an area safer, his presence just changes the nature of the crimes committed and those who commit them. One may be safer from outside muggers not related to the mafia, only to replace muggings with the various crimes I listed above. I cannot accept this situation as being safer. In light of these reasoned observations, my opponent's first contention must, "sleep with the fishes" In reference to street gangs listed in my first response. My opponent may wish to abandon this position concerning the gangs I mentioned, as most recruit members from either prison, or youths in the local area, and require horrific acts before fully accepting the member, in some cases. (see above links in R1) They are the muggers, the robbers, the killers, and the drug dealers making this country less safe in all respects. Living next door to a Crip or a Blood leader is a recipe for disaster. Gangs do not care who is in the crossfire and have no problem shooting a mother, her baby, or anyone else if they come between the intended target and a drive-by. South Central LA is a perfect example. The LAPD cannot stop them, and the resources spent on the efforts to prevent gang violence in certain areas hamstrings other crime fighting efforts as the resources never seem to be enough. Here is a crime map of the Lynnwood area of LA for the past 7 days. . http://www.lapdcrimemaps.org... This is one week, just one. Here is more. . http://www.lapdonline.org... Look at this year alone. . http://www.lapdonline.org... The gangs live and commit crimes in the areas they reside and they are spreading. These are some of the least safe streets in America. They do not mind assaulting and robbing their neighbors. Their presence is the antithesis of safe. The distain I hold for these groups is difficult to overstate. The Con Position. I maintain that the mafia must be viewed in full by examining the totality of the circumstances. The mafia cannot divorce itself from the ills it causes by citing some good that may come of it. If my opponent cannot show that any good can be separated from the overall criminal enterprise then we can conclude the mafia is all bad. I know some shied from this debate due to the wording of the resolution as, seemingly, any good act by the mafia would negate the con position. This line of reasoning is fallacious. When determining whether the mafia is not all bad, I reason that all bad must involve the "overall bad" to some extent. Showing that the mafia uses proper safety techniques when placing a bomb under a rival's vehicle is not sufficient to deem this act "not all bad". I contend that the act is all bad when viewed in totality. If a rapist uses a condom while committing this act, the act is still "all bad". "All bad" does not mean the worst possible case, just that the act negates any possible good resulting from the commission of the act. My line of reasoning suffices with organizations as well as overt acts.