The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
James.ticknor
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the 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...
Charlie_Danger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,742 times Debate No: 8001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

Charlie_Danger

Con

This debate does NOT have to be in LD format, in fact, I will be running a kritik on the resolution. We will follow LD rules (in the sense of AC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR; but that alone) for speaking order.
Please organize points in contention/point order. Anything not signposted will be ignored in the round.
I think that's it...just be logical and use common sense when it comes to rules.

Affirmative goes first...
James.ticknor

Pro

Where the justice system fails to enforce the law, the citizens have a right to uphold. It really isn't fair to say that when the justice system fails, then the people have no right to do anything about it. Vigiliantism doesn't have to be unorganized and spur of the moment, they can hold a citizens court, with people who are trained in law that do not nessicarily have to be a part of the justice system.

If the government fails we have the right to replace it with a new form of government, but until we establish a new government we have to take matters into our own hands, rather than rely on the current government that is failing to enforce justice. This would not create anarchy (in which there is no law) because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Con

Contention 1: "Justice doesn't exist"
As the resolution clearly states, to affirm is to "justify", justify being the root word of justice, aka, giving each his or her their due. But how do we decide what soemone's "due" is? The only means that us as a human race have done is through the process of external judgement, which includes due process, vigilantism, and any other means of judgement that is decided by a party that did NOT partake in the event being tried. The affirmative will most likely argue, in fact most people would argue, that due process (the system used by the US, or at least in theory) is the best form of judgement. This makes a single man (the judge) or in some cases a group of men (jury) the deciding factor in what is or will happen to the defendant. However, none of these people will truely know if the defendant acctually commited the crime, (when it comes to circumstancial cases where everything points in one direction, that is,) and even if they do, they cannot and will not ever know if the defendant really regrets the crime, or is already being punished internally. Internal punishment is just as, in fact more effective than that of external punishment. The best way of punishing criminals therefore would be to have them decide their punishments. Unfortunately, as we all know, most criminals aren't looking to get punished, they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system. All in all, it is virtually and realistically impossible to give someone their due, which means that this theoretical "justice" does not actually exist. If it is impossible to justify something (keeping in mind that justify=bring justice to) and moreover affirm the resolution.

On to the affirmative arguments:
My opponent contends that citizens have a right to effect justice when the government fails to and, assuming you ignore my first argument, I would agree. BUT, we don't have to affirm to give citizens these rights. Vigilantism is only one of the many forms of enforcing justice that citizens can perform without the government. Lets look at my opponent's example: "they can hold a citizens court, with people who are trained in law that do not nessicarily have to be a part of the justice system". He is right, and you can perform all of this without affirming, so at this point in the debate, I encourage you all to vote Negative.
My opponent also says that we should affirm to keep away from a state of anarchy, but like I stated before, the other forms of justice enforcement would be present (and my opponent agrees, since he proposes an example of this) thus keeping us out of anarchy.

For all these reasons I hughly urge a negative ballot.
James.ticknor

Pro

My opponent stated "They cannot and will not ever know if the defendant really regrets the crime, or is already being punished internally. Internal punishment is just as, in fact more effective than that of external punishment." But she also stated "they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system." So if they often do not feel remorse, how can they feel internal punishment? She contradicts herself.

In the case that law fails, community protection is absent, thus the society needs some enforcement mechanism in order to have a chance for survival. We achieve this through popular soverignty, also a form of democratic government.

My opponent took my words out of context when she said, "My opponent also says that we should affirm to keep away from a state of anarchy, but like I stated before, the other forms of justice enforcement would be present (and my opponent agrees, since he proposes an example of this) thus keeping us out of anarchy." I clearly stated, "(Vigilantism) would not create anarchy, in which there is no law, because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work." I did not say that we should stay away from anarchy, but rather that vigilantism is not anarchy.

She also said that I agree with her that "other forms of justice enforcement would be present". The 'other' forms of justice will always be present in vigilantism, but that does not mean that I support the failing government. Our current justice system fails at times, and we have the right to protect our lives, liberty, and property (The USA Constitution).

She also stated, "The best way of punishing criminals therefore would be to have them decide their punishments." Would you let your child (if you had one) decide his or her punisment? No, if you broke the law of the land and you could pardon yourself from anything you did, you would. That would be totalitarion, a form of government which vigilantism and democrocy do not uphold, so that point is flawed in that way.

You also said that "This (due process) makes a single man, the judge, or in some cases a group of men (jury) the deciding factor in what is or will happen to the defendant. However, none of these people will truely know if the defendant acctually commited the crime." I don't understand that. Of course they are not going to know whether or not someone really did the crime, because they weren't there. But if you had video EVIDENCE of the person comitting the crime, you would know he/she did it. That is what it is all based on, evidence. With vigilantism, you get a first hand account of the entire situation and you can deal with it.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Con

Firstoff, on this issue of gender. As my profile and sexual organs state, I am a male. Everything my opponent said in his last speech should be dropped because he improperly addressed my sexuality, and it is therefore difficult to decide who exactly he was talking to. But even if you don't buy that...

(Forgive me if I repeat myself, but I'm "going down the flow" aka reading the arguments my opponent made in the order he made them)

Against my Contention 1 my opponent claims a contradiction of criminals looking to get away with their crime vs. criminals being internally punished. The thing my opponent missed however, was the fact that the only reason criminals are looking to get away with these crimes is because the external method is driving this state of mind. But even then, my opponent missed the point of the argument, which was that NO METHOD works. He does not address this and therefore this argument flows through.

My opponent then claims that we should follow "popular sovereignty". I am not going to further discuss this argument because:
1) It is a new argument
2) It is unwarranted
3) It is irrelevant

My opponent also states that I misused his statement about anarchy and vigilantism. Let's take a look at what exactly he said then: "I clearly stated, '(Vigilantism) would not create anarchy, in which there is no law, because it is the process of implementing a new system, one that is better and does work.' I did not say that we should stay away from anarchy, but rather that vigilantism is not anarchy." So my opponent makes the claim that vigilantism DOES work. Unfortunately, he provides NO WARRANT for this claim, which means everything he said falls already. He just says "It works!" but I can say "The sky is green", it doesn't mean it is true. Even if you don't believe that, my opponent does NOT tell us HOW or WHY vigilantism is better than anarchy. I would even contend that because affirming gives citizens the ability to choose ANY punishment on another citizen, (since vigilantes are now justified in all they do,) it would be impossible to be just in punishing these "criminals" because there is no universal laws that vigilantes follow. If my opponent attempts to say that vigilantes WOULD have a universal punishment system, (which is impractical at best,) then he shifts the debate to citizens that have organized a de facto police force which is irrelevant. EVEN if you don't believe THAT... the affirmative fails to change the status quo, which is the entire purpose of the affirming the resolution! If he concedes to neutrality, he looses since there is no reason to affirm, which is exactly what has happened.

And further my opponent attacks my C.1 by saying that he doesn't support the failing government. This proves nothing. My opponent should NOT be supporting the failed system in the first place, which is proven by his stance on the affirmative. This argument does not gain my opponent any ground and I don't loose any either.

Against my C.1 my opponent says: "Would you let your child (if you had one) decide his or her punishment? No, if you broke the law of the land and you could pardon yourself from anything you did, you would. That would be totalitarion, a form of government which vigilantism and democrocy do not uphold, so that point is flawed in that way." Apparently my opponent missed the rest of my contention. I state this clearly: "...criminals aren't looking to get punished, they are looking to get away with their crime. This means that an internal system is just as ineffective as an external system." Again my opponent gains nothing with this claim. And he spelled democracy wrong, so you should cast the Spelling and Grammar ballot to me as well.

My opponent makes another unwarranted claim against my first contention: "That is what it is all based on, evidence. With vigilantism, you get a first hand account of the entire situation and you can deal with it." Vigilantes don't get any more evidence than a court case, in fact, it is downright illogical and impractical to assume that a vigilante will round up a forensic team, an investigative team and all other personnel required to analyze a crime scene! The only truth in my opponent's claim is that when there is direct evidence, like video, you are certain that the person committed the crime. But unfortunately, video is the ONLY reliable evidence since it doesn't forget or leave out things that happened, like witnesses do, which means all cases that don't have video are completely ignored my opponent. For emphasis I will repeat: MY OPPONENT IGNORES OVER 95% OF CRIMINALS CASES. So at this point, if I didn't say ANYTHING in this speech, the only ground my opponent has is the ridiculously low amount of crimes that have video evidence of the crime in full, but as it is, he doesn't even have that.

So at this point, my contention stands, my opponent has no ground to rightfully encourage an affirmative ballot, and I have listed all of the key issues why you vote Negative:
1) My contention one stands, which means even if all his arguments were proven to be right, you would still vote negative because he improperly addressed this one.
2) My contention one stands, which CROSS APPLIES TO ALL OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS. Because my contention one says "You can't affirm" and my contention one has been proven correct, you vote negative.
3) My opponent's first argument is false as you can see above
4) My opponent's second argument has also been proven false
5) My opponent has no ground to stand on, and if he was on the negative he might still have the chance of winning by proving the affirmative case wrong, but as it is, his case falls and my case stands. This means there are zero reasons to vote Aff.
6) Any argument my opponent makes in the next speech that I cannot address is new and should be ignored
7) Any argument made next that ignores my argument (such as his fifth paragraph) must be ignored
8) I have used
James.ticknor

Pro

1. Okay, we'll start with your gender. You stated that "Everything my opponent said in his last speech should be dropped because he improperly addressed my sexuality, and it is therefore difficult to decide who exactly he was talking to." You were purposefullly misleading in your picture, and did not point out until the final round of your sex. Second of all, I made the same reference to you when I said 'she' everytime. Which is to say, I did not call someone else 'she', only you. So I blame you for misleading me and not telling me of your sex or correcting my mistake until it was most convienent for you.

2. You stated that "criminals are looking to get away with these crimes is because the external method is driving this state of mind." If it envokes even the slightest bit of fear in criminals, then it obviously works, and you therefore agree with my arguement.

3. I expressed that vigilantism is "popular soveirgnty", which also is a form of democratic government, because the people are the sovierginty. I support vigiliantism in groups, and have made my claim to that by stating that it is the beginning of a revolution which has a plan to fix the failing justice system, as stated in the debate topic. As for "popular soverity", I will rebutt your points honestly make no sense to me.

a) "It is a new argument" No, we are still debating the same arguement that "vigilantism is justified..." This is just a new claim/point, and one that you failed to refute, so I can only assume that you accept it.
b)"It is unwarrented" It is warrented because group vigilantism IS popular soverignty, and also a form of democratic government. (Black Laws Dictionary defines Government-A system that has the power to enforce...and execute laws).
c) "It is irrelevant" It is not irrelivant because I am associating it with Vigilantism, which you would have to prove that it DOESN'T associate itself with vigilantism, which you also failed to do.

"So my opponent makes the claim that vigilantism DOES work. Unfortunately, he provides NO WARRANT for this claim, which means everything he said falls already. He just says "It works!" but I can say "The sky is green", it doesn't mean it is true." I did not say anywhere (and I beg you to point out). that vigilantism works, but it is better that maintaining the failing system that does work, because vigilantism is a rift between old governments and new governments, which better serve society. So your point of " the affirmative fails to change the status quo, which is the entire purpose of the affirming the resolution!" Is benign (doesn't go anywhere).

"Vigilantes don't get any more evidence than a court case, in fact, it is downright illogical and impractical to assume that a vigilante will round up a forensic team, an investigative team and all other personnel required to analyze a crime scene!" You said yourself that the people of the court do not know what really happened, because they weren't there. WELL VIGILANTES WERE THERE! So they do have more information than the justice system. You also said "MY OPPONENT IGNORES OVER 95% OF CRIMINALS CASES." That's because not many cases involve vigilantism, and I'm focusing on ones that do.

Okay, to keep it brief, I'm right, and he (no gender malfunction there) is wrong. For my opponents faulty arguements and my clear affirmation, I urge you to vote...however you want, but I would prefer you voted for me. Have a good day and thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
Oh my, I didn't realize that was a man...WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU NOT TOLD ME?! *heh
Posted by James.ticknor 7 years ago
James.ticknor
You too!
Posted by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
Infra:
Pirates and global warming.
Wow.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
That was fun!
Thanks for the debate James.
I think it was close. You had some points there at the end, but you did make some "new" points and some irrelevant points as well. I guess it's the voter's time now.

By the way, I was joking about the gender point, it wasn't a real argument.
Although I was NOT misleading in the sense of my photo. I used to have long hair like that, but I cut it. I chose to show that picture anyway because it's the only trophy pic I have. Also, my profile clearly shows my gender.
Posted by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
Infra, shut up. Please.

A kritik is a case that pokes at a common value that is evident in a case. Charlie was running a kritik on justice in this particular debate.

The word (and case style) is more often used in Policy debate. For example, with this year's alternative energy solution, a common kritik case is the argument that man cannot always look towards masses of money and scientific progress to solve their problems.

Well, look at that. You just learned a way to prevent yourself from (once again) looking like an imbecile and a bit of Policy terminology to boot. As they say, two birds with one stone, eh?
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
Which round was that Charlie? It's "fall through" and "critique." And you now know a little about LD format that you didn't before. And at least I didn't call you a girl. That's hilarious. "You didn't tell me." How sleazy can you get, keeping such a secret? Make sure the Census gets it right.

I like your rules, especially where the NFL proves that pirates are the cause of global warming. We must act now.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I got this really screwed up round and I don't want to vote for myself, if anyone here minds...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I don't know why, but I was exactly 6,000 characters and it cut off my last comment:

"8) I have used better spelling and grammar"

Thank you.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Not only that, but highly flawed and answerable :) But, I wouldn't want to weight the debate unfairly, as it were.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
"Justice doesn't exist" is a particularly boring kritik for this resolution, if you ask me.

I refer you to state of nature philosophy: there is no such thing as a vigilante. Now THAT would be an interesting read.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 7 years ago
dobsondebator
Charlie_DangerJames.ticknorTied
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 MargotIsAwesome 7 years ago
MargotIsAwesome
Charlie_DangerJames.ticknorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
Charlie_DangerJames.ticknorTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Charlie_DangerJames.ticknorTied
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 Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Charlie_DangerJames.ticknorTied
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:70