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

Affirmation Viglante: An organization that intakes the responsibility of upholding justice with that further intention.- Oxford Law handbook Value: Justice VC : Categorical Imperative Thesis: Punishing the guilty is a categorical imperative. A Kantian would argue that if one of the last two people on earth, surviving the apocalypse in a concrete bunker, knew beyond a doubt that his fellow survivor was an escaped murderer, he would have duty to execute the evildoer. This justice-over-all approach warrants vigilantism in the face of failed government enforcement. Furthermore this establishes that the only premise of justice other than the effect being just, is that a good will is the only way to achieve it. Lastly this achieves justice by endorsing truth at all costs, and justice that is true, a good will. 1: We all have a duty in our society. It is to excell in our area of work. Bring commerce to our society. Lastly, we have to abide by all societal norms. In the absence of a government the duty of establishing justice to preserve society is not being fufilled. Thus, as at all times we have a duty to be just and create justice. a:Our duty is now to uphold justice so the society will not collapse. In doing so, we are commiting to a good will. We are saving hundred of people from chaos. b: I will distinguish that the actions carried out are solely to protect society which would be just. This is not done out of a perpetual hatred for a crime or vengeance. This is not what vigilantism is. Seeing as my opponent has not defined Vigilantism there is no competition with my definition so the affirmative definition must be accepted. C: The duty composes of five things: 1. Uphold Justice with the intention of upholding justice 2. Deliver punishments 3. Protect thyself 4. protect thy community 5. Establish order D: Work toward the institution of some order is invariably just because the sole purpose of society is this. To prevent collapse and anarchy the affirmative must promote vigilantsim E: The Institution of a vigilante group is granted by the craving of man for order. I will propose that since government has broken its side of the social contract it must be reestablished or fixed. Rebbutals V:Justice VC: Popular Sovereignity Popular Sovereignty is defined as the true will of the people. I will stress that the will of the people is subject to the peoples needs and wants but the vagueness of this argument leaves a lot to be desired. Understand that the true will of the people is not consistent with the resolution. The true will of many people is often diverse "it is the duty of the government to reflect the views and positions of the people" The people are the rulers, essentially. How is this not different from Vigilantism. For example in your first point you said "Vigilantes strive for swift and sure punishment: the problem, however, is that vigilante "justice" is often too swift and too sure." So this Vigilante organization would further ask for the same of the govt. For example: What happens with government: The people ask for the execution of a criminal, justly. The government has to give it according to you vc. What happens in vigilantism: The vigilante organization, since it being the public, it wants to execute a criminal. It happens. My opponent is essentially advocating vigilantism in doing what the people want. This essentially leaves his case as nothing. Cont. 1 is immediately refuted, extend my args. Cont.2 This contention is pressing in a definition that states that a vigilante upholds the law. My opponent, though clearly has failed to define vigilantism and proposes no argument that states otherwise. This argumant is irrelevant with my definition. Cont.3 Vigilantes motion toward justice. They swift and sure, but right. Unlike the cases currently proposed, this is in a context of a place with no government. To further elaborate, it further poses the "end of the line". It advocates justice period. In other words Justice is not the reform of the criminal, it is his debt to society for his crimes. Their punishment is sufficient because, as clearly my opponent doesn't believe, justice is sufficient. Afterword: Hi, This is my first debate on this website, and my first year doing LD. Also I am in middle school.