Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law -- strictly LD

First on the observation: My opponent tries to skate the issue. The fact is that THE LAW implies the general body of law that was simply not refuted. And if the general body of law has collapsed then there is no other realistic situation besides a helpless government. Honestly give me one place where the entire body of laws are not being enforced that has a good government. And in either case I think corruption still is pretty bad. Starting on values: 1) I accept that human rights is the value and the Kavka card on anarchy, which goes unrefuted, shows how I link and I will show later. 2) My opponent claims that a person without rights would like to be dead. However I never said life>all rights combined, I just meant give it MORE weight than each individual right as it is clearly the most important. Onto the VC debate: First off extend my offense at the top of my attack the negative side that says we should just use a general utilitarian principle instead of being overly limiting. This means that as both of our cases are essentially designed at limiting anarchy we look to that instead, as I extended the kavka evidence that says anarchy is the worst possible occurence. So kick the negative VC I will show how my contentions better prevents anarchy then her case. This whole standards debate is kinda ridiculous at the point we are both trying to stop the same thing. AFF CASE: c1: on the nina card: My opponent says that a government will fight back. However thats not responsive to Nina all we get at that point is that the government will respond. Rosenbaum/sederberg is where it plays out. On this point she ignores sederberg and rosenbaum who have both done an intensive study on vigilantism and concluded that they will try and stop it through crime control. Think logically, it's easier for the government to address the underlying causes then deal with an angry vigilante group. Oh and what sederberg/rosenbaum mean by vigilantism wanting the old order is the vigilantes want it to be like BEFORE the government wasn't doing its job. They want to go back to a non corrupt government. Also just because they don't intend to doesn't mean it won't happen. She dropped the impacts which show the vigilantism is by necessary a temporary phenomona that goes away once it's wrought change. c2: 1) I don't see a warrant for how vigilantism can't produce systemic change. 2) Ill deal with crossapplication on negative side 3) This is illogical. Chairman Mao in China had a revolt then plunged his country into poverty. Why would a new government stop poverty? 4) My opponent misses the point of this contention so I'm just gonna make into a voter now and tell the "story of it" So lets take a look here, SO VOTER: My first point is that vigilantism stops corruption, and that outside of vigilantes stopping it, no one else can. The fact that they are what is outside of the government gives them the ability to stop this corruption. The government isn't getting the job done. So lets look at the costs of the corruption which I just showed they stopped: 1) We destroy the countries international reputation, a government can't get loans for public works and out soft power is destroyed! 2) As Dreher and Herzfeld talked about if we combat corruption we could increase our GDP by FOUR HUNDRED percent. On the other side corruption can lose us up to SEVENTY percent of our GDP. More than that Povery kills. Steve Kangas before outline the myriad harms to those in poverty, and we have to weigh that against the somewhat suspect offense of my opponent most of which rests on her winning this one observation. Oh and just a reminder, this point does not rely on me wining the observation, corruption happens everywhere. But I'll go ahead and win that anyway, So there is the first easy place to vote for me, I have the ability to combat poverty which is one of the greatest harms today and then weigh that against the short term harms of vigilantism. Onto the negative side. Ok first this issue I brought up about how D contradicted A. The fact is that she claims that "vigilantism throws this legitimate government into chaos", however my point was that a rebelling against this "legitimate" government probably would do a lot more to disrupt it especially if there is infighting. Also extend the response that we don't know enough about the government for you to demand that I analyze the very specifics beyond the fact that its dysfunctional. Extend it and this point falls. My opponent should of warranted the claim of this contention if she wanted the claim to be responded to. TURN: 1) Once the vigilantes are absorbed by the state they are no longer vigilantes, yes thats true. However what I'm saying is that eventually vigilantes lead to vigilantes merging, it's an effect of the current vigilantes I'm not saying that their vigilantes then. There is a distinction. 2) It's just an example, and as I don't see you providing any response to the logic extend it as true. Also one example>No examples on this point. 3) The point is not just the people join. Let me explain THIS WILL BE A VOTER BY THE WAY. Basically what I'm saying is that vigilante groups and the police force have a pattern of merging, or at least the only empirics we have on this subject suggest that. The next point is the sederberg and rosenbaum card. She completely did not respond to it. AND the three advantages of this: 1) Vigilante groups are by necessity popular, she did not respond to this in her last speech don't let her go new in the 2... or 3 in this case haha, and so the government now gains the obedience and love of the people. 2) We get the capable leaders, I.E. people who command loyalty, what government wouldn't need those? 3) We gain the direct resources of the vigilante groups which will be in dire need when a government is in trouble. So for those three advantages there is another easy place to vote affirmative as this also takes out the point and outweighs on magnitude since it restores government and probability because of the empirics. B) 1) Not extreme cases just realistic ones, I win the observation as I said before so this is a reason to ignore this point. 2) sorry haha round numbers messed up in my head. Still examples consist of more than reeling off countries names or I would be shouting, "SLAVINIA" or some random country right now. 3) AGAIN, and crossapply this from before as it was dropped. How do we presume this country has a formal legal system. In general my opponent has no solvency for any of these harms unless she wins the counterplan and even then... C 1) My point is that is is highly probable that a vigilante group would win in the end. 2) Framers intent, honestly did they want the aff to defend, vigilantism Vs. Law? point 4) My opponent misunderstands this. What this card says is that vigilantism follows what society normally does, thus there is non of this conflict my opponent talks about they all enforce one idea of law. This answers the subpoint as it shows that the vigilantes WILL NOT conflict. Don't let her respond to this in her next speech as she dropped this in her last one. D) 2) This counterplan has in now way more solvency then vigilantism. I outline in explicit detail how vigilantism solves and why. She just says, REVOLT. There is no solvency in that 3) This point is gone as she dropped the point that said we can't debate a point that's this nebulous, as then I can't run a disad or just say why its bad in depth, so dont let her bring it up again. SO without the CP she has no solvency and even with it I showed how I outweigh. Look over this debate, and see who is winning the arguments with the big impacts. My opponent is going to make a huge deal about the observation in her next speech. I clearly showed you I won that. Death of millions and long term solvency V. REVOLT. Do the math. Thanks for the fun!