Vigilantism is justified when the justice system fails to enforce the law.

I will waste no more space arguing about whether my opponent's quote was plagiarism. "Preservation of a way of life for yourself IS self preservation." And, as I previously stated, it is a beneficial form of self preservation. "We are not talking about the average human, we are talking about the unusal role of the vigliante. So we can not assume they have the same 'moral threads' as the rest of society." Vigilantes are still humans, so they will tend to share moral values with the rest of society. "1. Govermental officals are trained to control reflex judgement and do not base decisions on raging emotions, like many vigilantes do. Even if that is true, the defendent can have a retrail- a do-over." But what about when they have failed to enforce the law? " . . . morals are not reasoning, but a way of upbringing." Morality is defined as "a code of conduct put forward by society" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Morality is common among society, and is not merely based on upbringing. "I used the analogy to defend the point you made agenst "there is no need for offical justice." With anarchy, it replaces government and the current justice. And in the scenario, there is no offical justice, because there is no government (government = the game they are playing) present to create offical rules." The creation of rules (laws) is irrelevant from the perspective of the resolution. Vigilantes enforce the law. In my opponent's analogy, there is no law and therefore no vigilantism. "2. There will never be a perfect government, just as there will never be a perfect vigilante. So we must make the best decision between the two, which is government." I agree that the government is generally better than vigilantism. However, that is irrelevant within the scope of this debate. The government has FAILED. My opponent is arguing that vigilantism is not justified when the government is functioning, which I agree with. When the government has failed, though, is a whole different scenario. "3. I said that government is consistantly successful, and vigilantes were not. I'm afraid I do not understand your point." The government within the scope of this debate is consistently unsuccessful. The resolution states that the government has failed to enforce the law. "4. Vigilantes enforce the law to an extremety in many cases. Just because they enforce the law to an extent does not make it automatically good." I do not think this point made any actual arguments. "Anyways, if it is within the realms of this debate (I'll entertain the idea), government law enforcement is better than vigilantes enforcement in many ways." By definition, government law enforcement is worse than vigilante enforcement. The government has failed. "Since vigilantes do not need an 'offical law' like you said, what is stopping anyone from being innocent or a criminal? With a goverment can we clearly distinguish criminals from innocents." Vigilantes DO need an official law. Vigilantes punish criminals, and criminality can only be defined if an official law is in place. By definition, vigilantes only punish suspected criminals. "I remind my opponent that this is nessecary only in forming a government, not with a government itself, which has a Constitution, not a social contract." The social contract exists wherever there is government. The social contract is a theoretical construct that does not simply disappear when a government has a constitution. If the government has failed its responsibilities, society is no longer obligated to give over all powers of law enforcement. "Actually, a verbal agreement can be overwritten with a constitution. And if it is not written, what stops them from saying 'you said you wouldn't do that' or 'this'? It reflects your point on 'no offical law', which no longer withstands." My opponent misunderstands the concept of the social contract. It is not an actual contract; it is metaphorical. It relates to the responsibilities of government and society. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... "I would like to point out to the voters that you acknowledge your defeated point. The law enforcement system did not fail as a system, because every law enforcement system, even vigilantes, fail. Again, we must choose the better of the two (government)." It did fail as a system. The resolution states " . . . the justice system fails to enforce the law." The law enforcement system has failed by definition. Government is not better than vigilantism, since the government has failed. " . . . their willingness to uphold justice as individuals and not as a whole." -Vigilantes do not necessarily work as individuals. Vigilantes frequently work in groups. "Without vigilantes enforcing the statistaclly small cases of failure, I do not believe that law would be meaningless and we would be more disordered." The justice system has failed. This is definitional, and cannot be argued. If the justice system fails and vigilantes do not continue to enforce the law, there is no reason whatsoever to obey the law. But if vigilantes enforce the law, society is upheld. ======== In conclusion: - My opponent has made virtually no arguments, and instead has tried to argue against the very resolution of this debate. - My contentions still hold strong.