Resolved: The Actions of the Vigilante Known as Batman are Justified

I do appreciate it. As a brief roadmap, I will start by rebuilding my own case and then move on to attack my opponent's. First off, he dropped my value/criterion block, meaning that they are important to be upheld. He also never says how I fail to uphold them, giving me the round right there. My First Contention discussed how vigilantism emerges from anarchy. My opponent does not disagree with this fact at all. He only disagrees that Gotham City is in a state of anarchy. However, he does admit the the government is failing to fight crime adequately. The government is failing in this town. While they have an "active government and police force", they are almost completely corrupt before Batman. The government has failed its people and they need some thing to protect and defend them. Batman luckily obliges. My second contention specifically talks about Gotham City's state before Batman. My opponent disagrees with my assertions that its a lawless town. But when we exam all parts of the Gotham City justice department we see them ripe with corruption. The district attorney's office, judges, police force and state run mental institutions are almost completely on the payroll of the Falcone family. This shows that laws won't really be enforced. With corruption that deep, it shows a failure and lawlessness within the town. My third contention deals with Batman filling a necessary void. My opponent says he is too violent, making his action unjust. Let me argue that violence does not necessarily mean an action is unjust. We respect our police and armed forces because they use violence for our protection. Batman uses violence for protection. Yes, he bends the rules, but because he has no other choice. I'll negate his alternatives as I attack his case. Now, to move on to my opponents case. His first contention deals with Batman as a vigilante. He says Batman violates his own standards of morality. Yet we realize he has a strict code, and sticks too it, such as with murder. He always makes sure the criminals are arrested or if he feels they can reform lets them go, but watches them. My opponent also says that Batman's actions are justified if crime would have gotten worse without it. We realize by the massive drop in crime after it had been rising it would have. His actions did make a good difference. My opponent implies constantly breaks the law, but we see the majority of his actions that are violent are solely to interrupt crimes occurring, which is justified. His Contention 2 deals with possible alternatives for Batman's actions. I disagree with the implications that he does not do such things. We see him collecting evidence for the police often. He works in conjunction with the officials he mentioned. Let me also point out, those officials also condone Batman's behavior. He does almost everything my opponent argues for in the status code. The only times he uses violence is in self defense or to interrupt crime. Both those times are perfectly justified. My opponent discusses that he should work with charity to decrease homelessness. Let me point out that he is actively involved with charity works as his parents were. Let me also point out that the main problem with crime in Gotham comes from organized crime and corruption. Batman activities are not as violent and horrible as my opponent would like to make them out to be. My opponents final contention three deals with accusing Batman acting only on a vendetta. He says that Batman hates all criminals is too much of an ultimatum. Bruce Wayne steals to survive when he lives abroad which shows an understanding of their life. Yes, he seeks vengeance, but he does so with rationality unexpected by someone fueled by blind rage. He avoids violence when ever he can. For these reasons I urge for an affirmative ballot.