The Instigator
heyitsjay
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

RE: Vigilantism is justified when the U.S. government has failed to enforce the law.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,854 times Debate No: 8164
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

heyitsjay

Con

Here I will state rules that may concern viewers:
-does not have be in LD formatting
-round 1 will be our opening statements
-round 2 is where both us will explain in further detail our arguments and will provide specific evidence and other facts
-round 3 will be where we conclude our arguments and provide a resolution
-no use of personal attacks towards one another

I will proceed with my opening statement.....

I have chosen the side CON which is against vigilantism. I chose CON because I believe that vigilantism is very dangerous and can threaten citizens and others in a community. Other reasons why I chose my side include trust and how vigilantes violate the constitution (I will explain my arguments in the second round).

who ever may accept may proceed with their opening statement.....
Cody_Franklin

Pro

|Little bit of a disclaimer: Although it doesn't HAVE to be in LD format, I'm going to do my side as such. Hope there are no objections.|

In Amitai Etzioni's book The New Golden Rule, he points out that "Communities, not governments, should govern men." Because the failure of the government to enforce set standards is an opportunity for community intervention, I affirm that Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.
Let me define some key terms:

Vigilantism: Prof. William Burrows explicitly lists criteria to define vigilantism: An organized community response, proceeding for a finite time with definite goals, acting because of a failure of the established law enforcement system, and working for the preservation and betterment of that existing system.

"the law": the regime that orders human activities or relations through systematic application of force.

Before presenting my value, I'll clarify the affirmative burden: First, the phrase "the law" shows that we're talking neither about a law, nor some law, but a body of rules. Second, the resolution asks for justification: I don't have to prove that vigilantism will be used, nor that once used it will be 100% effective, or completely perfect: A government is imperfect, and vigilantism must be held to that standard.

My value is Justice, which is the equilibrium between order and autonomy. Etzioni says that we cannot maximize either one of these because to lean too far towards rights leads us to anarchy, but to lean too far towards order brings us to totalitarianism. Balancing the community with individuals allows society to function at the highest level.

The criterion which seeks this balance is Communitarianism. Order and autonomy share a sort of reverse symbiosis, and Etzioni offers a standard by which to achieve the equilibrium: "Respect and uphold society's moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy." In short, whatever you put into the community is exactly what the community is going to reciprocate to you.

Contention I- Vigilantism protects the equilibrium from further abuse.

1)Vigilantism prevents extreme reactions to crime.
Etzioni is quick to point out that the only kind of acceptable autonomy is the institutionalized autonomy one has in a community. When citizens follow the rules, upholding the order of society, the government is obligated to reciprocate by upholding their autonomy. When the government experiences a failure, people are inclined to haphazardly take matters into their own hands without care for order; The essay Communities, Victims, and Offender Reintegration remarks that if citizens don't take responsibility for decisions affecting the community, then that community will be plagued by lack of a collective sense of caring, a lack of respect for diverse values, and a lack of sense of belonging; the general health of a community – and its crime rate – is directly related to the extent to which citizens participate in the community. What this basically means is that without responsible citizens participating in the justice process and operating under set standards, unnecessary violence can occur; in short, without organized vigilantism, there is a
greater likelihood of a lynch mob surfacing to claim vengeance.

2) Vigilantism prevents the government from overcompensating for its failure.
Etzioni explains that if the public's safety is not protected, that "they tend to call for stronger and stronger police measures, and ultimately for strong leaders." Looking at the equilibrium, a government failure often leads to future over-enforcement as a response to the public's desire for safety. The problem here lies in the fact that the government leans too far towards order, further disrupting the already-damaged equilibrium; vigilantes act as temporary mediators in victimized communities to prevent the shift to totalitarianism.

3)Vigilantism helps expose fundamental flaws in the government.
Gordon Bazemore states in Civic Repentance, "Since the root of crime is community conflict and disharmony, ‘justice' cannot be achieved by a government ‘war on crime' but rather by peacemaking and dispute resolution. In this sense, crime – or any conflict – is viewed as an opportunity because it calls attention to social conditions that cause conflict and provides a chance for the community to affirm its values and tolerance limits." The government's failure may seem bad at first, but its failure is really an opportunity for reform; obviously the government's "war on crime" was ineffective, and vigilantism puts pressure on the government to change the way it operates. Effectively, without vigilantism, the reformation of the government could never get off the ground.

Contention II- Vigilantism enhances the equilibrium between order and autonomy.

1) Vigilantism promotes higher community involvement in governing.
Communities, represented by these organized vigilante committees, are better suited to handling criminals because of the benefit of increased familiarity with victimizers, according to Kelly Hine's Vigilantism Revisited. Vigilantism is preferable to the criminal justice system in this instance, because while the justice system is interested solely in punishing criminals, a community response to crime offers much more including, but not limited to, reintegration of offenders, restitution to victims, and encourages both offenders and victims to participate in the reconciliation process. Thus, community restoration of the equilibrium is preferable to the societal focus on retribution.

2)A community response to crime promotes flexibility.
In criminal law, there are blanket sentences applied to certain crimes, like murder, or arson, or assault. Courts often dismiss the circumstances of the offense, under the mentality of ‘a crime is a crime is a crime'. In light of the government's failure, communities have more than a right to take responsibility for local offenders; this is a better response to crime because communities are able to work on a case-by-case basis, examining all the circumstances of the crime, such as the offender's history, personality, and other factors that allow for personalized redemption, as opposed to merely a prison sentence and probation.

3)Vigilantism supplements traditional law enforcement.
An example of organized vigilantism is the Peninsula Anti-Crime Agency in South Africa; they're a community group which looks after rape victims, abused children, etc. They actually encourage victims to go to the police; if the police cannot or refuse to mediate the conflict, only then does this group step in: Much like the PEACA, vigilantes will only act once traditional law enforcement has failed, simply to fill the holes that could not be filled; since the change from a focus on retribution to one on reconciliation is difficult, vigilantes are helpful in that they attempt to work with and reform the existing system; they uphold the order of society by operating through established laws, and thus the equilibrium mandates that society recognize the autonomy of a community to regulate crime and resolve conflicts.

In conclusion, while the negative may ask you to maximize a criminal's rights, or maximize the power of the government to control crime, only with the affirmative can you achieve the equilibrium between order and autonomy; don't blindly accept ‘maximizing rights' or ‘maintaining order' as inherently good things; only by sacrificing some of both can we achieve justice.
Debate Round No. 1
heyitsjay

Con

I will proceed with just a minimal amount of observations I would enjoy to clarify.

1. My opponent has agreed to use LD formatting for his side:
-That limits the amount of arguments he can provide
-He cannot make any new arguments in the final round of this debate

I for that matter, am not using LD formatting so my arguments are infinite.

2. My opponent has provided evidence that is restricted from the topic at hand:
-I specifically stated vigilance in the U.S. government.
My opponent has provided evidence involving South African vigilantism. This is outside U.S. regulation and is forbidden to be issued in this debate.

I will continue with my side of this debate....

My opponent has offered facts from a book, I will have my own idea of arguing the topic which will include the U.S. constitution and cases involving vigilantism.

The term vigilantism refers to someone who is a vigilante (someone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands). Through out the years, there have many situations that have vigilante involvement. For example, during the 18th century, there was a cult that even exists today that we all know as the Ku klux Klan (KKK).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The KKK during the time, was a southern vigilante group who discriminated and oppressed African Americans. They are also considered to be a terrorist group. They murdered and abused these poor citizens who did not commit a single crime. Therefore, they violated several laws in order to "protect the American or white life style". These laws include murder, destruction of property, and violation of the civil rights act.

Another example I would like to provide is a murder situation in Tennessee that also involved "vigilantes".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

For those who chose not to read the links provided, I will simply summarize the occurrence. A man by the name of Timothy Chandler, was arrested for possession of child pornography. When let go, he returned to his wife and home. Two of his neighbors (vigilantes) decided to take action by scaring him. They set off a small fire near his house. The fire grew to the point where it burned down Mr. Chandler's home and ended up burning his wife alive. The two vigilantes were charged for murder.

Clearly this shows that vigilantes do not bring peace or justice to the community if they break the law in order to protect the law.

I will now discuss in more specific detail, why vigilantism is unconstitutional. Now, picture a criminal who is not armed but not yet caught by authorities. A vigilante decides to take his/her own action by killing the criminal (there have been several situations same as this one). The difference between a police officer and a vigilante killing a criminal is the fact that police are authorized to do so by law. This is because they have been professionally trained properly versus a common civilian who might have no good understanding of how to carry out the situation. Police officers are only allowed to kill a criminal when the criminal is armed and dangerous, otherwise they would have their fair share of punishment. Regardless, vigilantes are not authorized to do so.

Problems with this situation:
-the vigilante is not authorized to kill so they are charged with murder
-the vigilante violated criminal justice
-the vigilante violated the sixth amendment
-the vigilante did not have a good understanding of the law and only went what they thought was right

To clarify any concerns:
Criminal Justice: clearly states that a person arrested is not yet guilty until proven in court.
Sixth Amendment: clearly states that a criminal has the right to have a jury and a fair trial.

With the information provided above, this proves that vigilantes cannot be trusted to carry out the law as well. If they do not have a good understanding of the law, break the law, or only go by what they think is good, clearly shows society that they are an unreliable source.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

Before I begin my rebuttal, I would quickly like to ask the voters one thing: There are a lot of negative stigmas associated with the term 'vigilante', so for the sake of fairness, I'd like you all to please remove these stigmas, as the CON cannot possibly ask me to justify negative thoughts and feelings.

As far as my PEACA evidence (South Africa) is concerned, keep in mind that a vigilante group in one region is little different than one in another region; a rape in one place is rape in another, same for murder, arson, theft, etc, and the U.S. government is just as capable of failure (perhaps moreso) than any other government on the planet.

My opponent first brings up this argument on the KKK, who he alleges are a vigilante group. I'll respond to this in three ways.

1. Look back to my definition of vigilantism, which, coming from the American University Law Review, is a more credible source than wikipedia. One criterion for being a vigilante is that the government has to FAIL TO ENFORCE THE LAW. If, as my opponent claims, the KKK killed innocents, then that would mean that the government had not failed to enforce the law, thus, while the actions of the KKK are not justified, they are not a vigilante group, putting them outside the boundaries of this resolution.

2. Also under the definition of vigilantism, vigilantes have to be working for the preservation and betterment of the existing system; what this means is that if a vigilante group acts outside of the laws and rules of the community which they represent, the community reserves the right to remove these vigilantes from power; thus, since the KKK was not working for the betterment of the system, they cannot be vigilantes.

3. While my opponent tries to make the claim that all vigilantes have to be violent, there's no way that could be true; if the government were to enforce the law, it would be called just; a change in the actor does not change the action, because since the government's failure temporarily empowers these vigilantes, they are able to use the same kinds of systematic force as the government; so, even if you buy into the argument that vigilantism is violent, keep in mind that the government also uses violence on occasion, but that doesn't make the government unjust.

He goes on to talk about a case in Tennessee, where he talks about 'vigilantes' there, who burned down a man's house, etc. I'll respond in 2 ways.

1. When you weigh this through Communitarianism, you can see that the only time vigilantes have the authorization to act is when they act within community boundaries; in this case, 2 rogue individuals took what they thought was justice into their own hands; so, since the community did not authorize them to act, these individuals could not have been vigilantes.

2. Also keep in mind that the point of vigilantism is to take society's focus OFF of retribution; with a Communitarian model, we can move to things like Victim-Offender mediation, restitution, selective service, etc. Such systems have been implemented in Vermont, and have been quite effective in dealing with criminals; plus, the Communitarian model brings the victim and the community back in to the sentencing process; so, while government justice would be great, the government's failure was really an opportunity for the vigilantes to set up a model which the government could, at least partially, adapt to.

Next, my opponent makes this rhetorically pleasing argument about 'breaking the law to protect the law'. I'll respond in two ways.

1. If the law was being broken, then community standards aren't being upheld, so this group of individuals would no longer be considered to be a vigilante group.

2. Since the government has failed to uphold the entire body of rules, even if the vigilante was acting 'illegally' in the eyes of the government, the government's concept of law has already failed, and if the vigilantes don't act to enforce the law, then no one else is going to; so, even if you buy into this argument that vigilantism is 'illegal', then you have to choose: either you have one violation of law to uphold the entire body of law, or you have multiple violations of law by real criminals who have noticed that there is no government intervention. You decide.

My opponent then makes an argument about authorization and violence against criminals. Group these together, and I'll respond in two ways.

1. Using vigilantism doesn't mean championing violence as the answer to every problem, this is simply a scare tactic by my opponent; vigilantism may not be the cleanest option, or the 100% perfect option, but faced with a failing government, it's all we have left to achieve Justice.

2. As far as authorization is concerned, vigilantes are authorized in two ways: A) The main facilitator of justice, the government, has failed, meaning no one else can do the job. B) The community authorizes the vigilantes to act for the interests of the community (as per the definition of vigilantism, a community response).

The "problems" with this situation:

-not authorized (I just covered this)

-violation of criminal justice (Pull through the fact that if the criminal justice system hasn't finished conducting its processes, then at that point the government has NOT failed, and thus makes this argument inapplicable.)

-violates right to jury trial (1. Even the 'fair' trial can sometimes produce unjust results. 2. A trial results in punishment of prison and probation, but the commmunitarian/vigilante model removes punishment from the focus of criminal justice, instead focusing on actually mediating the conflict between the victim and the offender.)

-no good understanding of law/do what they think is right (1. For the vigilantes to be operating, they have to be authorized by the community, meaning they have to have at least some understanding of community rules and regulations. 2. The vigilantes don't operate under their own mindset, because to be allowed to act at all, they have to be acting for the interests of the community, which is the reason that they are a legitimate group to begin with.)

Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent very often says 'the vigilante', implying a single person; but, as I provided in my opening statement, vigilantism is a community-sanctioned group, and therefore we cannot consider rogue individuals in today's round.

So, in conclusion, by removing the negative stigma from the term 'vigilantism', along with discarding the extreme and unrelated examples that my opponent presents, I see no other way to vote than PRO.

I look forward to the final round of debate.
Debate Round No. 2
heyitsjay

Con

Before I proceed with my final statements, I would like the voters to please pay close attention to my opponent's use of LD formatting. Because my opponent has just stated his conclusion, he is not allowed to state anything else in this round. If he does continue on with anything referring to an argument, conclusion, etc., he violates the LD formatting rules.

First of all, my opponent's evidence referring to the PEACA, may seem (he so stated) related to the topic. I would like respond to how this evidence may seem, but actually is not relevant to the topic.

His evidence refers to South Africa. Yes, in some countries, the law is the same as it is in the U.S. I restrict any foreign information in this debate. This is simply for the fact that other countries may have different laws, codes, or rights for the people. Also, Africa is not part of the United States and this debate is specifically about vigilantism in the U.S. and the U.S. only.

He also made a brief point about my source referring to the KKK. Wikipedia I understand is not a so so reliable source. On the other hand, it was only to give the viewers a brief notification of who the KKK were and what they did. Most people definitely know about the KKK, but it was only a little clarification.

I disagree about my opponent's definition of a vigilante. He states that a vigilante has to have a understanding of rules and must be known by the community. This is incorrect. A vigilante is generally anyone other than law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. Any civilian can be a vigilante, they do not have to know the community or be accepted by it. A vigilante can be anyone as far as someone who beats up a man who runs a red light.

http://law.jrank.org...

The Tennessee case, involving Timothy Chandler, absolutely involved vigilantism. My opponent mentioned that the vigilantes were not in community boundaries or were not accepted by the community to take action (referring to his false definition). For one, they were his NEIGHBORS. They were for fact in community boundaries. His neighbors had no good understanding of how to carry out the law. First off, Timothy Chandler was just released from prison, he paid his debt to society and may have realized what he did was wrong. His neighbors still thought of him as a criminal, but did not have a good understanding of the law. But they went ahead with their stupidity and decided to make a huge mistake, and ended killing the wrong person on top of it.

The government is what makes up everything the in the U.S. This includes law enforcement such as police stations, FBI headquarters, etc. So when the topic states "when the government has failed to enforce the law", this is not direct to the government itself. This can refer to the NYPD, LAPD, etc. The government supports the law. The laws are rules that keep the nation in order. When the government cannot enforce these laws, it doesn't mean that laws no longer apply. If that were the case then the entire nation would be in huge jeopardy and not even vigilantes could make a dent in the situation.

If the government cannot enforce the law, then the people still have to obey the law. Without the law, there probably would be no country. If highly trained police officers cannot enforce the law, can vigilantes therefore enforce it? Chances are, no. Like said before, vigilantes are anyone. Most vigilantes are probably just ordinary people who have not been trained, nor contain a good knowledge of the law. Vigilantes mostly only go by what they think is good or what should be. When a vigilante like that sort, stops a criminal or even a man who runs a red light, that makes it a very risky situation. Chances are, the vigilante may feel that killing is the correct way of handling it, even though it is not. Is that justified? No, of course not.

My opponent may have mentioned that I always show evidence involving violence. Of course, not all vigilantes may think like this. But then again there are some that do. Some vigilantes simply think that "eliminating" the problem is what is best when it isn't.

Vigilance is the act of a vigilante or vigilantes. A vigilante is anyone who takes the law into their own hands. This is for reasons unknown. We, meaning society, are unaware of this person's intentions. If the people do not have a good understanding of why this person is enforcing the law or what they might do, then clearly the vigilante cannot be trusted. This person, referring to the vigilante, may endanger the people and might take things to an extreme level like the case in Tennessee. Despite what criminals may be guilty of, it is not fair to them as well as many others to have to pay an unreasonable punishment when chances are they might become a better person. It is not also fair for the innocent citizens to have to experience homicide and murder.

If the government failed to attain the law, it is no ones' job but the government to handle the law. The government is the organization that is hired to handle anything that happens in the country and it is their job and no one else's to protect the law. If the government has failed to do it's job then it is their responsibility to fix it, to aid the situation. How I think they have to handle it is to clearly reformat the government. This can range from replacing law enforcers to government officials. But regardless, it would be more effective than allowing vigilantism.

This counts as my resolution.....

I conclude my argument with the simple fact that vigilantism cannot be justified in any situation. If the government has failed to enforce the law then it is not justified for vigilantes to take action when the people do not have a good understanding of how dangerous it is or what might become of their safety.

Quick facts:
May I remind the voters that my opponent is not allowed to state anything related to this debate. LD clearly forbids it. Therefore, my opponent may not respond to anything else I have or may have said. He has no other choice but to forfeit this round. This secures my side of this debate and I only recommend voters to vote against vigilantism.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

I'd like to go ahead and justify my last post, due to my opponent's lack of knowledge pertaining to LD formatting; first of all, when I say 'in conclusion', that would be to conclude THAT post, not my entire case for vigilantism; in an LD round, the affirmative always gets the last chance to argue: It's a little thing called the 2AR.

On the South Africa evidence, keep in mind that while he says laws, rights, etc. may be different, he never refutes the fact that rape, arson, murder, theft, etc. are the same crime no matter what country you go to, and he says "I restrict any foreign information in this debate"; while he may be the instigator in this debate, I don't believe that he has any right to tell me what evidence I can and can not use (especially when I can justify its use).

As far as the KKK, all he says is that he was clarifying what the KKK was; let me say that the CON in no way should be able to ask me to justify lynch mob violence; in fact, look back to the first point in my case (completely dropped by the con); vigilantism PREVENTS extreme reactions to crime; so, without organized vigilantism, we would have a much greater chance of seeing a lynch mob.

On the definition debate, two things here:

1. My opponent keeps using the phrase 'a vigilante', but I'm not arguing a rogue individual acting outside of the community; I'm talking about an organized, community-sanctioned group.

2. If the vigilantes are not accepted by the community, then the community would disallow them from acting, so even if you buy the idea of the individual vigilante, you'll still vote PRO because of the fact that the members of the community serve as a check on the vigilante's power.

As far as violence is concerned, he gives this nice little quote from law.jrank.com; I will admit, vigilantes aren't incorruptible. But of course, everyone is susceptible to corruption: "At this point, most people are ready to say that the prospect of private law enforcement is a guarantee that people will abuse their powers, thus making government-run police a necessity. This argument assumes, of course, that government law enforcement officers do not abuse their powers." http://www.lewrockwell.com...

So, once again, even if you buy the argument that vigilantes are corrupt, keep in mind that it's not unique to only vigilantes, so you would be voting CON on a potential harm that's possible in any system of justice.

Also, on the Tennessee case, let me clear something up: When I say 'within community boundaries', I don't mean inside the city limits; I'm referring to the legal and moral boundaries of that community; if vigilantes don't act for the interests of the communities which empower them, those communities fully reserve the right to remove them from power; keep in mind also that these vigilante groups are not acting to avenge ONE crime; the entire body of laws has been destabilized by the government's failure, and therefore, without organized community vigilantism, no one is going to be enforcing the laws. Vigilantism is needed for a government; look at contention 1, points 2 and 3 of my case; without vigilantism, the government would not be pressured into reform, and it would simply overcompensate for its failure, which would lead our government even farther down the path to authoritarianism; a perfect example of this overcompensation was the 9/11 attacks; our government failed to protect us, and what did it do afterward? 2 wars in the middle east. The PATRIOT Act (both 1 and 2), wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, the list goes on and on, but it all adds up to one thing: overcompensation. This proves that, especially for the U.S. government, an unstable society gives way to authoritarian tendencies.

To quickly sum up my opponent's definition, he simply repeats his original definition, and the idea that they 'cannot be trusted'. Keep in mind that he isn't justifying his definition over mean, he is simply re-explaining it, while I have clearly proven to you that since the community empowers these vigilante committees, it is obviously a finite community response (because once the government is restructured, the vigilante committees are dissolved.)

The last little bit my opponent says intrigues me: "How I think they have to handle it is to clearly reformat the government. This can range from replacing law enforcers to government officials. But regardless, it would be more effective than allowing vigilantism."

Let me point out several things wrong with this:

1. In the period between the government's failure and the government's reformation, the CON does absolutely NOTHING to guarantee justice, while the PRO at least gives you an option (look back to Contention 1, point 1: Vigilantism prevents extreme reactions to crime, so once again, Vigilantism = no lynch mobs).

2. Look again at Ctn 1, Points 2 and 3: First of all, re-apply the analysis I gave on how vigilantism prevents the government from overcompensating for its original failure (because the government cannot be allowed to reform by itself, lest this overcompensation be the result). Also, I really want you to pull through Point 3 about how vigilantism brings to light the social conditions causing crime in the first place, and only with the pressure on the government that vigilantism creates can one reform the government successfully; to put it simply, no Vigilantism = no reform.

3. He drops the example I give about Vermont, and how they have adopted the Communitarian model to an extent, and they have been very successful in dealing with criminals by bringing the community and the victim back into active, participatory roles in the criminal justice system; this is the kind of reform we want.

After this, he makes the claim again that vigilantes don't understand the law; re-apply what I've already said on this subject, mainly that because the community empowers these individuals to act, they have to have knowledge of community rules and morals to be authorized to do so; if they were clueless, the community would not allow them to represent the interests of everyone in the community.

Finally, he makes the claim again that I'm apparently not allowed to say any of what I just said. So, I'll give you a choice, voters: One, you can look at true LD format, in which the PRO (Aff) always gets the last word (the 2AR), and vote for PRO on the grounds that my opponent merely repeats himself in places, and completely drops all of the arguments in my case which pre-empt many of his own, and especially the fact that while my opponent advocates reforming the government, he gives you no way to achieve justice in the meantime, while the PRO at least gives you something; it may not be the cleanest option, nor effective 100% of the time, nor incorruptible, but anything is better than what my opponent gives you: nothing.

If you don't believe any of that, then yes. Please, feel free to vote CON, based on his repetitive argumentation (albeit it is worded a bit differently in each formulation), and especially the fact that, rather than hear what I have to say, he would tell you TWICE that I don't have the right to make a final post because of his misinterpretation of LD format, and the conclusion to my last post.

I urge you today, look past the format-oriented attacks and tautologies (repeated arguments worded differently each time), and vote for the side that gives you logic, truth, and a path to justice. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aqua34 8 years ago
Aqua34
Alright. Good debate though you really held up your side of the case nicely and defended yourself against the attacks well.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I understand what you're saying, but first of all, the affirmative's only burden is to prove the resolution true, regardless of counterplans produced by the negative.

Also, one wouldn't say that utilitarianism is better than vigilantism- you can say criterion X is better than criterion Y, but you can't claim a criterion's superiority over the subject of the resolution. That really doesn't make sense.

But, the way I learned LD wins me a lot of rounds (and I'm not saying that you do not), so to each his own.
Posted by Aqua34 8 years ago
Aqua34
You're right, but it would also help in proving the CON that they are wrong. The way I learned LD the way to win a round is not just to prove the CON wrong, but to say that something like rule-utilitarianism is better than vigilantism.

Make sense? That is what I was trying to get at.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
That's true; A counter-plan may work for CX, but in LD, an alternative doesn't prove that vigilantism is not justified.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
"A suggestion would be that you prove different methods to use instead of vigilantism, not that it is just wrong because you kept calling him out on that but you needed to back up that claim."

That is CX format, not LD.
Posted by Aqua34 8 years ago
Aqua34
That was a good debate, but not very convincing on either side.

Con: I get that you were saying vigilantes were violent and you proved that well. A suggestion would be that you prove different methods to use instead of vigilantism, not that it is just wrong because you kept calling him out on that but you needed to back up that claim.

Both Sides: Don't argue over format though that destroys the debate.

Pro: Good format and defending your case. He kept saying that vigilantes are violent you needed to show examples that they were not since he was technically calling you out on that. That would have been very helpful on your side.

Overall it was a pretty good debate, but it still leaves at least me in question on why it is better or not better than anything else.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"Keep in mind that he isn't justifying his definition over mean"; on my last rebuttal, that should be "over mine*", not "over mean".
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
CON was being abusive with the whole "my arguments are infinite" statement. Just because cody wants to play fair doesn't mean you can exploit that.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Thank you for the good debate.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Let me clarify by saying that I took opening statement to mean like opening arguments/structure etc. If I messed up your format, I do apologize.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ninjaraygun 8 years ago
ninjaraygun
heyitsjayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
heyitsjayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Icarus57 8 years ago
Icarus57
heyitsjayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
heyitsjayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
heyitsjayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07