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

Being my biggest rival is a term of endearment, lol. You're just my favorite person to debate, but yeah, you have reached a new level of laziness. Senoritus must be kicking in. Just moving down the flow, starting with the Negative. Contention 1 - In the end, both sides are trying to achieve justice so it will all come down to who best supports their value. Contention 2 - By adhering to legal justice, we really aren't achieving anything in the situations that we are talking about. If we adhere to legal justice, then we are just letting the criminals get away with anything. According to my definition, which went unrefuted by my opponent, justice is the administration of punishments or rewards. So, according to his own case, he can punish criminals by doing nothing about it. Furthermore, vigilantes aren't trying to replace the government, they are only trying to help it out when it fails. Contention 3 - Consistency is achieved on the affirmative side. The law does not change. No matter what, the vigilante must uphold the law or else they are no longer a vigilante rather than a rogue individual. The ONLY thing that changes is who upholds the law. So I ask, in the administration of law, how does consistency help if possible for the government to fail? Hypothetically, if the government upholds 7 out of 10 cases, and even if vigilantism can fail on a few of them, if they uphold even a single case, then they are achieving a net benefit for society. Consistency among who enforces the law does not benefit society, rather consistency among the laws that are enforced will benefit society. Contention 4 - In this argument, my opponent just assumes vigilantes will change or sway away from the law, but as I've defined, and again, went unrefuted by my opponent, vigilantes must adhere to the law, so the decision of vigilantes is not really up to them, rather the laws of the government. Moving on to the affirmative side. I would just like to say once more that since my opponent refused to offer definitions to refute mine, he accepts them as grounds for this debate and cannot offer any in the future. Value - I've already mentioned here that consistency of laws enforced is more important than who enforces the laws, so I will just move on. Criterion - I'm not saying that changing the law is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, it is a good thing. But for example, getting a bill passed through the US Congress can take plenty of time and action must be taken now. Batman may have been created in an imaginary world, but it's far from ideal situations. The crime and corruption is far worse than it could ever become in the real world. The only reason that I even mention it is because I want to show that by taking action, you can alter the world drastically. Furthermore on his arguments, we are not talking about if the law has failed, we're talking about the failed enforcement of the law. If the law has failed, then I agree completely to change it, but we are talking specifically about the enforcement of the law, so this argument is completely off topic and should be ignored by judges in this round. Again, my opponent believes that vigilantism is deciding the law, but that is simply not the case. Vigilantism is just enforcing the law outside of the police department/judicial system. They are still upholding the laws of the government. This is a flawed argument by my opponent. Thus I urge you to vote Affirmative and I will await your response Mr. Cumbee :-)