The Instigator
Kwhite7298
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 33853
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Kwhite7298

Pro

This debate follows National Forensics League LD format. If you are not familiar with it, do not accept this debate!

Voting guideleines will be presented at the bottom. I will try to keep this under 2,000 characters so I can fit my speech in. Formatting will be similar to time, but 1 minute = 1,000 characters. Debaters will be expected to copy+paste speeches into MS Word and provide a word count at the bottom of the speech in order to verify to the judges that the speeches are legal.

Character Limits by Speech:

R1: Terms of debate

Acceptance

R2: AC (aff. constructive)

NC/NR (neg. constructive/neg. rebuttal)

R3: 1AR (first aff rebuttal)

2NR (2 neg rebuttal)

R4: 2AR (second aff rebuttal)

Congratulations

----------------------------------------------

Voting Guidelines:

Conduct will be tied unless there is a forfeit.

Spelling and Grammar shall be neutral unless one competitor is guilty of breeching theory.

Arguments shall be given to whichever side won the debate.

Sources shall be given to whichever side presents better sources.

----------------------------------------------



This debate is currently not acceptable. Comment here or PM me in order to let me know you are serious about this. This is a series of debates that I am going to be starting in order to further my skills in this form of debate before competing next year.

Thank you.
YYW

Con

I accept, and await my opponent's argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Kwhite7298

Pro

Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
YYW

Con

My opponent has forfeited his last round, though if he wants to post his argument in the next round that will be fine.

I'll look forward to his future arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Kwhite7298

Pro

Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
YYW

Con

It appears my opponent has forfeited again. Perhaps he'll make an appearance in the final round?
Debate Round No. 3
Kwhite7298

Pro

Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
YYW

Con

Well... that settles it.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I waited a long time, so that you could prepare your case. I've done no prep-work, other than the extent to which my university education prepares me fo' dis' sorta' bidness.
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
I'm online, I'll post my AC this weekend. I've been swamped in schoolwork lately, sorry!
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Kwhite hasn't been online for a while now. I hope he comes back though. This is a fantastic topic.
Posted by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
I think given the somewhat vague resolution, two scenarios could be derived that lend themselves to opposite and equally valid conclusions.
Posted by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
This is a really interesting topic.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
Make it an 8k character limit for each round, and I'll accept.
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
Ragnar, standards will be explained during observation 3 of the 1ac.

Gondun, let me know what side you want (pro/con) and I will adjust accordingly. I just need to change it before the debate begins.
Posted by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
I would be interested in debating this topic with you. I have experience with Lincoln Douglas debating and will comply with you rules.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
The user wants people to apply through the comments, to confirm they know the standard to be used. Nothing stinky or retarded about it.

This will however be hard to vote on, unless voters also must know the standard.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Kwhite7298YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Herp derp?!
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Kwhite7298YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: YYW showed up. He soundly defeated PROs position.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Kwhite7298YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was also the instigator, thus he clearly had full BOP, which he obviously clearly did not fulfil. Hence Pro loses, & thus Con wins.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Kwhite7298YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Kwhite7298YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF