The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

Vigilantism is Justified when the Government Fails to Enforce the Law

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,558 times Debate No: 7641
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

Metz

Pro

Cazioic Tournament Round 5.

I Affirm the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

The value for this round will be Justice defined as "giving to each his or her due" Justice is the most important value for this round as the resolution is asking us whether or not a specific action is permissible under a system of justice, thus the usage of the word justified. Furthermore the resolution is asking us a question of law, making justice the obvious value. Justice is also the state to which all governments and all people thrive, as it holds value in of itself.

The Criterion will be Preserving Communal Security. The community is bound to, and it is beneficial to, preserve its own security, the most primary of human instincts. John Locke explains "Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, ought, as much as he can, to preserve the community." It is by preserving this community that we can best meet justice. By preserving the security of the whole we best preserve the security of the individual. In order to achieve this standard I must show that affirming the resolution can, at the very least, preserve communal security. This is independent of whether or not negation can preserve the same because the resolution asks if Vigilantism is an acceptable course of action and it is acceptable so long as it can preserve communal security, not based on whether there are alternative courses of action.
I will offer the following analysis of the resolution.

The intent of the resolution is for the Affirmative to defend vigilantism only in the case of violation of laws with moral backing i.e crimes in violation of universally accepted moral standards.

1. Intent: Vigilantism is generally thought of in the cases of the most severe of crimes. This is what the framer of the resolution obviously intended as it is the usual context of vigilantism.

2. Fairness: both sides should be presented with equal ground to either Affirm of Negate the resolution. When we look at only a specific group of crimes this clarifies the debate and allows us to actually debate the topic at hand rather than semantics it also allows for us to debate:

Vigilantism Qua Vigilantism:
The Aff must only defend vigilantism qua vigilantism. i.e. the essential features of an action that make it count as an instance of vigilantism because the generality of the topic prevents the affirmative from presenting any sort of specific plan of action for exactly how vigilantism ought to be carried out.

C. Analysis of Justified
The term justified in the resolution does NOT mean I have the burden to prove an obligation to vigilantism rather, that a person can't be blamed for carrying out vigilante justice given the extreme and unusual situation in which they finds themselves

definitions
Vigilantism: The act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals."(Blacks Law Dictionary)
The Law: The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority. (American Heritage)
Enforce: To give force or effect to a law. (Blacks Law Dictionary)
Failed: To be unable to (Princeton)

Contention one
Sven Bislev presented to the American Political Science Association That, "The ‘vigilante' groups emerging in many places also represent a communitarian thinking" Associate professor of law Lloyd R. Cohen further explains "Vigilantes exist because they believe that justice is far better served by their methods. The law enforcement bureaucracy is totally unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry and in many cases perceived to be disinterested in the public safety of the various communities." What should be established is that vigilantism is the response of a community to failed law enforcement. Without vigilantism people have no way of protecting themselves.
William Culbertson writes "The right of the people to take care of themselves, if the law does not is an indisputable right," vigilantism is but a case of the people exercising their sovereign power in the interest of self-preservation. For if the instruments of state power do not exceed private capacities, government ceases to rule and private power becomes the last resort of maintaining the social system." If the community wishes to preserve itself and to preserve social order the only route it can take is vigilantism. Professor Richard Maxwell Brown explains, "Vigilantism mobilizes the community and overwhelms the unruly criminals. The community is left in a more orderly and stable condition, and the social functions of vigilantism are served. What Vigilantism seems to do is Stabilize community values, such as security and preserve social order. The problem of community order was solved by the consolidation of the three-level social structure and the solidification of the supporting community values" So by taking vigilante action the community can preserve itself, its own security and thus we justify vigilantism.

Contention Two:
From the early 1980s onwards in central Tanzania, Sukuma and Nyamwesi villagers began to organize their own form of collective policing which became known throughout Tanzania as sungusungu. Over time, these groups, which initially by-passed the official agents of state, far from being rejected, have become an integral part of the administrative structures of vast areas of rural Tanzania. The actions of sungusungu groups constituted a 'taking of the law into their own hands' and were in any event outside the law, challenging the powers the judiciary took as its own, of arrest, trial, and punishment. In her book" State, law, and vigilantism in northern Tanzania." Suzette Heald wrote, "In Tanzanzia, the sungusungu have altered the nature of state power at the local level and initiated long-term reforms. The Communities have taken back power, developed their own policing capacity and, in so doing, effectively re-invented themselves. With reformatory agendas, they have evolved new normative structures and modes of co-operation and organization. A new vision of community responsibility is heralded and held out as an ideal. In the same way, perhaps, they have reformed and reclaimed the state"

Contention three
The Impacts the negative will give you actually will not exist in a system as described by the resolution. This is because vigilantism is self-regulating. Economist Adam Smith gave the idea of the "invisible hand" as a regulator for the free market. The Economic Theory behind the invisible hand is that because the driving force behind a free market economic system is profits company's will try to maximize their own profits and the market will settle on a price of product distribution, an equilibrium that is beneficial to producers and consumers alike. This same economic concept of the "invisible hand" can be applied to vigilantism in this resolution. The driving force behind human organizations is safety. Everyone desires to be safe and secure in his right. So if the government fails and vigilantism is used these vigilantes, just like companies in Smith's free market system, need to find an equilibrium point where society will flourish. If a vigilante becomes too destructive of rights than other will step in and take him down in turn. Peter J. Ahrensdorf wrote " desire for security is the most reliable and rational desire of our nature, and any state based on satisfying that desire is, unlike pre-modern forms of political organization, fully in harmony with human nature and hence fully capable of solving the problem of anarchy." Philosopher Robert Nozick further explains that "the invisible hand explanation for a minimalist society shows how, for the sake of their own rights, citizens must be respectful of the rights of others" So any vigilante that abuses the system will be pulled down in turn, just like the criminals he sought to stop.
littlelacroix

Con

I would first like to wish my opponent good luck in this round and future rounds in the tournament.

To start, I will first begin with the Negative case and then move on to the Affirmative side of the flow.

I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Starting with the definitions, I have no opposition to the ones brought forth by my opponent and I reserve the right to clarify anymore definitions that are deemed necessary.

My value for this round will be that of Justice. Similarly to my opponent, my definition of Justice is giving each his/her due. If the government is unable to fulfill its duty, then its due would be to lose power. I will explain this with my criterion of John Locke's argument on the "State of Nature."

In his argument, Locke mentions that in man's most primitive form, he would entertain the idea of anarchy, the lack of state. This is the "State of Nature" for man. As we have become more civilized, we have developed different forms of government that we pass along through generations. If, however, he is not introduced to any form of government, he would once again entertain the idea of anarchy. Government must exist to protect life, liberty and property or else there will be no order or safety in society. My criterion lies within the next part of his argument, if the government fails their duties, then the people have a right to revolt and replace it with a government that WILL uphold their needs.

Contention 1 – Revolt is different, and better than, Vigilantism
When a person becomes a vigilante, they deem themselves qualified to capture and properly punish the criminal. But are they truly qualified? Not necessarily. When the people revolt, however, the group as a whole will elect person(s) who, several people will agree, are qualified to carry out the law. Rather than a single person deeming themselves the law, many people can determine the proper system to hold the people responsible for their actions.

Contention 2 - Revolt has had more real life success than Vigilantism
During the 1700's, the English colonies believed that the government had failed its duties and from it came the American Revolution. The monarch was no longer protecting the interests of the people thus the people had the right to revolt. From it, America was born, the land of freedom and opportunity. No longer were they being suppressed as they were under British rule.

On the contrary, according to Kenneth Schroeder, who did a study on the world's most famous vigilantes, one of the most famous real life vigilantes, Jonathon "Jack" Idema, hasn't had as much success. As a former member of the US Special Forces, Idema decided to create his own counter-terrorism group. He has, approximately, a 2% success rate. In one instance, Idema went into Afghanistan, found a "suspected" terrorist and turned him over to US forces. He was released a week later, after being tortured for information, when his identity was confirmed and there wasn't even a link to terrorist actions. Idema was later imprisoned for running his own private prison and torturing inmates. And this isn't even the only instance of vigilantism failing. Several other vigilantes have been cited in many cases as severely beating or even killing people without determining the true guilt of the people.

With that, I will move to the Affirmative side of the flow.

Since my opponent and I are valuing the same thing, I ask the judges of this round to look to who best supports their value via criterion and contentions.

As far as my opponent's criterion, for this I completely agree. The only problem with it is that it IS NOT achieved on the Affirmative side of the flow. In order to preserve communal security, the community needs to work together as a whole rather than a single individual declaring himself the judge, jury and executioner. By the community working together as a whole, they can create a government that would be willing to carry out the law for future generations to come. Single person actions, IF carried out properly, would only be a short term solution. Therefore, both values and criterion in this round will be upheld on the Negative side of the resolution.

I will give my opponent his Resolutional analysis if and only if it is agree that revolt is only thought of in the most severe of cases as well. I am not contesting that the government be overthrown because a kid stole a candy bar and got away with it.

And again, I will allow my opponents definitions.

I would like to group my opponent's first two contentions together. According to his own definition, Vigilantism is the act of a citizen who takes the law into his or her own hands by apprehending and punishing criminals. This means that a single individual would carry out everything him/herself. According to his own contentions, the examples he mention sound more like peaceful revolts that involve communal effort to exchange power from a system that doesn't work, to a system that works. If the community is working together as a whole to fix a problem, then it is simply NOT vigilantism, rather revolution, and thus only supports the Negative side of the case.

On the third contention, you mention that vigilantism is self-regulating because of Adam Smith's "invisible hand." Well in your comparison of the economy to vigilantism, it isn't the "invisible hand" that prevents Walmart from monopolizing on the department store, it's the government. In a pure free market economy, Walmart would not stop just because they think that they have too much power, they would continue until they are all alone. This can even be applied to Locke's theories in that without government regulation, entities are selfish and only care about self preservation, another key concept you have mentioned throughout your case.

It doesn't make any sense; you say self preservation and think that that automatically applies to community preservation. Only when a community works together can they achieve community preservation, but a single vigilante doesn't necessarily speak for the entire community. Self preservation is different than community preservation.

In order for us to achieve justice, not only in the present times, but also in the future, we need to work as a community to create a working government rather than letting a few rogue, potentially unqualified, individuals run a muck. The only way we can achieve any beneficial outcomes is by upholding Justice, upholding John Locke's theories and ultimately upholding the Negative side.

With that, I will await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

I will start in the Negative and Move to the Affirmative

We both agree on the value and definition of Justice so I do not feel that this needs to be addressed.

On to my opponents criterion he essentially tells us that "if the government fails their duties, then the people have a right to revolt and replace it with a government that WILL uphold their needs." Look this a really good idea, the government fails, the government is replaced. The people have a right to revolt here, I agree, however they also have a right to self-preservation and the preservation of others. This right may actually come first. First you must stabilize the society, via vigilantism, then you can move on to fix it, either by vigilantism as I show in my contention 2 or by revolution.

On to my Opponents contention one
He contends that in a revolution "the group as a whole will elect person(s) who, several people will agree, are qualified to carry out the law." I have a couple of responses to this. First this is not what a revolution necessarily is. Revolution is simply the citizens rising up to overthrow a governing body; it makes no claim as to the process. Second, this is non-unique as it can apply to vigilantism as well. My opponent tries to contend that vigilantism merely is a "single person deeming themselves the law" if we take this argument and look at this same thing except focusing on revolution you will find that revolution is "a group determining that they are the correct law." However my opponent's logic here is flawed and this is not what vigilantism is. Let's look at the situations in which I have the burden to justify vigilante actions. First, the government has failed to enforce the law. Second, the Vigilante must actually enforce THE LAW, not his own skewed version of justice. Otherwise he is not a person taking the law into his own hands but somebody deciding what is the law. Saying the two are the same would be like saying the executive and legislative branches are the same branch. I will address how vigilantism can be revolution when I look at my case.

And off of contention two
This contention really has no purpose in this debate. My opponent gives one example of a good revolution and one example of bad actions that may or may not actually be within the resolution. We are not debating whether there are more good vigilantes or bad vigilantes as that would be entirely pointless, but rather is vigilantism justified as a general rule when the government fails to enforce the law.

On to the Affirmative flow

My opponent contends that "In order to preserve communal security, the community needs to work together as a whole rather than a single individual declaring himself the judge, jury and executioner." However this has no logical grounding in my case, or at all for that matter. If I punished criminals and thus deterred crime I would be providing for the security of the entire community. A police officer can protect us without the community stepping in. why is a vigilante when the police have failed any different? My only real Burden is to show a net PRESERVATION of security by vigilantism.

I agree to the terms of my analysis my opponent has set.

My opponent groups my first contentions so I will address this grouping and then address each individually.
My opponent makes the argument that ". If the community is working together as a whole to fix a problem, then it is simply NOT vigilantism" and warrants this by using the definition of vigilantism. However first of all if I am an individual and take the law into my own hands I am a vigilante and my action is classified as vigilantism. If I work together with others, I am still an individual that takes the law into my own hands, thus a vigilante. A police Officer is an individual who enforces the law according to government statutes. Does that mean that if he is part of a police department he cannot be a police officer anymore? Of course not. My opponents' points are logically flawed and I ask that they be dropped from the flow.

My contention one shows that Vigilantism strengthens and preserves the community by apprehending criminals and preserving social order. This alone fulfills my burden. We Affirm.

My contention two gives a real example of when an action, classified as vigilantism, spurs reform because of the benefits to the community and the pressure on the government. Vigilantism then, is almost a kind of revolution because it acts as almost a vote of no confidence and forces the government to either reform or be disbanded and have a new one rise up as we saw in my example. Because it reforms a failing system it preserves the community and its security, from near anarchy to legitimate government, we affirm on this contention as well.

On to Contention 3
My opponent makes two arguments here. His Wal-Mart example and his attack on self-interest. I will start on the first. In a purely free market system, Wal-Mart is a monopoly, or at least close to one. Applying this to the resolution a monopoly in the world of vigilantism is called a government. When people band together to form a social monopoly, the beginning of a new legitimate government is formed. There is a reason a government is said to have a "monopoly" on force. Like an economic monopoly it controls the distribution of its product. When a society obtains this monopoly it creates rules for the distribution of this force, it creates police forces and a military. In other words it is a government. The Second part is actually not an attack but a restatement of my point. In this state many people will work for themselves. However they will realize that their own interests are best served via cooperation, they are made safer than they otherwise would be.

When the government fails, the citizen and the community has no choice. It must maintain itself. This means preserving social order and the security of the community. How can the citizenry do this? By enforcing the otherwise unenforced laws, that is, vigilantism. To make sure criminals receive their due and others are deterred from crime. Thus we affirm
littlelacroix

Con

I will just move down the flow...

Starting with his argument on my criterion, he openly admits that revolution is a good idea, but that vigilantism should come first to stabilize society. I have two arguments on this 1) Vigilantism could fail. As I proved in my contention 2, vigilantism could fail and thus it wouldn't be able to stabilize the community. If carried out by someone who doesn't know what they are doing or are rather brutal in their actions, they could cause harm to society rather than helping it. My opponent just automatically believes that vigilantism will work and that is a major flaw in his argumentation. 2) It would be rather ridiculous to say that we should wait to revolt until after society has stabilized. The government is constantly failing us, but we should wait to replace it until we reach complete anarchy via vigilantism. It doesn't make any sense to wait to revolt if the government fails us all the time, because we would constantly have to resort to vigilantism, society would never become stable and we would never have the chance to revolt. We need to either revolt or become vigilantes, and, as I've shown and will continue to show, vigilantism is harmful to society and thus we need to revolt against an unsuccessful government.

On my contention one, since my opponent wants a definition of revolution, and I reserved the right to clarify, I define revolution as "the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed." (Merriam Webster Online) So since it is one government replacing another, the people will put in place another, presumably, functioning government. And this is something that is simply NOT also applied to vigilantism. Vigilantism is overriding and surpassing the government. Revolution is replacing a government. That means that there is a claim to a process, replacing it with a government and not lack there of, so anarchy is out of the question.

Moreover, you claim that a vigilante "must actually enforce THE LAW, not his own skewed version of justice. Otherwise he is not a person taking the law into his own hands but somebody deciding what is the law." You're trying to bend everything in your favor. According to your definition of vigilantism, the individual takes the law into their own hands, apprehending and punishing criminals. No where does it set any boundaries about how the individual apprehends and punishes them. What if a vigilante tortures and kills innocent people that may know where to find the criminal, and when he/she finds the criminal, what's to stop them from torturing or killing the criminal themselves? Now, although that is absolutely worst case scenario, the possibility is not beneficial to society. Going even further, if the vigilante was personally hurt by the original crime, they would be more than likely to take it a step too far.

Going on to my contention two, he mentions that this is basically a pointless argument. Two things on this 1) Examples in history are the best argumentation because it's happened and we can see the consequences of said action. 2) This example is relevant to the resolution. The government has failed to capture the top terrorists in the world and so this man took it upon himself, as a vigilante, to capture terrorists and failed miserably. Terrorists are worse than the average murderer and rapist that we may be talking about in this resolution because their driving force is to inspire fear by killing many innocent people. This is a prime example of what we should be debating in this resolution, but my opponent just wishes to wave it off as he has no refutation for it.

Moving to the Affirmative side...

Going back to your definition of vigilantism, once again, the vigilante will apprehend and punish the criminal. I can't see anywhere it says anything, even remotely, close to trying the person in question. How are you deterring crime if you punish a person that is potentially innocent? Furthermore, this is going back to the arguments that I have mentioned before about punishment. It could be too light or too heavy for the crime that is committed and thus it is having either no effect or negative effects on society. I hate to say it, but my opponent has failed to achieve the only burden that he has set for himself. There are so many things that could go wrong with vigilantism, under-punishment, over-punishment, punishing the wrong person, hurting people along the way, etc, that the only way my opponent can achieve his burden is if the vigilante is perfect. If a single one of these things go wrong, the vigilante is having negative effects on society and isn't providing a net security. By saying that every vigilante is perfect is completely one-sided and we need to look to a medium for this debate.

None of my arguments are flawed on my opponent's contention one or two. He argues this by mentioning that if a police officer is part of the police department, then he can't be a policeman anymore. This is just a ridiculous argument. The police officer is employed by the government and follows the rules and regulations that are set by the government. And even if a vigilante works in a group, the punishment will ultimately be up to the individual. However, when a group is acknowledge to have power and is accepted by the presiding form of government, as in your example, then it is a peaceful revolution of power. The police system, a form of government, is being replaced by another form of government, the so-called vigilantes. Thus you have provided an example of a peaceful revolution rather than a group of vigilantes.

On your contention 1, I have proven time in and time out that it is not preserving the social order and thus you have not achieved your burden.

Now your contention 2, I want this argument settled. Vigilantism does NOT equal revolution. Vigilantes think that they are better than the government, and thus don't need it, and revolution is replacing a government with another one, as they know that they need one. My opponent continuously says that he's right, but provides no logical backing for any of his arguments. Vigilantism is the first step to anarchy because they attempt to prove that government isn't needed, and thus it is not attempting to create a legitimate government.

On the contention 3, I will first start with the Wal-Mart argument. All you are basically saying here is that I'm right. When people think that Wal-Mart is no longer legitimate, they form a social monopoly, stop going to Wal-Mart and would create their own store, sound familiar? That's because it's REVOLUTION, not vigilantism. Vigilantism in this example would be a man walking through the store and striking down prices.

Moving on to the second part of his contention 3, he automatically believes that self-preservation is equal to communal preservation. If that was true, then cooperation among different stores would exist. The executives at Wal-Mart want people to shop there and nowhere else, basically, it's self-preservation. Does that mean that their actions are beneficial to Target, Shopko or K-Mart? No, therefore self-preservation, an argument that you have had throughout your case, is not equal to communal preservation.

Since vigilantism can provide several negative effects and doesn't necessarily give people their due, or deter other criminals for example, we can only achieve justice on the Negative side of the resolution. If the government fails, it should be replaced by a community working together to replace it, and not having an individual, or few individuals, take the law into their own hands. A single man being the judge, jury and executioner is unjust and thus I can only see a Negative ballot.

Thank you and I will await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

NEG

Lets start with the criterion, starting with the two defenses he gives. 1) My opponent makes the assertion that we can't affirm because vigilantism may fail. However this is ridiculous, we can't say something is bad because they chances for success aren't perfect. Yes I will admit, vigilantism may not work. But what if it does? in my opponents world, we shouldn't even try. My opponent assumes vigilantism will always fail, and that is the flaw in his argumentation. Yes there are risks, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a justifiable idea. 2) Revolution and vigilantism are not mutually exclusive. With vigilantism the revolution works twofold. We fix or overthrow the existing government while providing for the public security at the same time. This makes the transition smoother as we do not have a period like that after the American revolution in which the colonies needed to form together, to come up with new laws and their own police forces. The vigilantes would bridge that gap allowing the rule of law to still reign during this transition.

C1., If we look at my opponents given definition of revolution, it does not imply the new government will by a better or more legitimate government. But he justifies this. Why? because my opponent is taking a leap of faith that revolution will be successful, an unsuccessful revolution can have massive consequences to increased oppression of the revolutionaries to massive executions. But yet the people, in their time of distress forgot these possible consequences in order to preserve themselves. Revolution may replace a government, but as I show in my C2 vigilantism may reform an already existing government as well as provide for the common security.
But here, he denies the logic in such a leap of faith that he himself takes. He even goes as far as to say "the possibility is not beneficial to society." Great. It may not be perfect, but we can't expect anything to be. Just because there is a possibility to harm does not mean we aren't justified in doing it. For example, say I want to get my tonsils removed because they are getting inflamed frequently. I would be justified in proceeding with the operation even though there is a "possibility" I could get an infection that could quickly spread and kill me. Furthermore my opponent seems to have missed the focus of my attack. My attack stated that a vigilante must actually enforce an existing law. The KKK was not a vigilante group. They enforced their own morals. Personal Morals are not laws. Vigilantism requires that a person "take the LAW into their own hands" not "create and execute laws and punish for a violation of them." Remember the Framework tells you, as the judge to vote on VIGILANTISM QUA VIGILANTISM, ie the essential features of an action that allows it to qualify as vigilantism. These "what if" scenarios A) are not within this framework and my opponent himself says they are "absolutely worst case scenarios" and B) is really not beneficial to the debate as it would allow him to get out of an argument by proposing a remote possibility of harm. Imagine if this was done in real world, say in congress. "we need to cut our reliance on foreign oil" "But what if the middle east gets mad and nukes us?" is that really an educational way to debate? So my opponent violates the Framework and Theory on this argument.

C2, while I agree that real world examples are good, all my opponent did was present two scenarios, a good revolution and bad vigilantism. But Then again my opponent dismissed this mans failure as a reason not to justify vigilantism. But we need to accept that plans will sometimes fail. An Innocent man is brought to trial for criminal charges and convicted. Is the trial then unjustified because of the possibility the outcome would be wrong? What about people like Bernard Geotz, the famous "subway vigilante" who received massive popular support for his actions and his charges were dropped by a jury because they believed that he had acted well and properly. Jury Nullification allowed Geotz to get off from 18 of of 19 charges because people approved of his actions. Or what about the Cuban Revolution that allowed Fidel Castro to seize power? See? this is why my opponents contention here is another argument that destroys debate. It turns it into a game of math. "are there more good vigilantes or more good revolutions?"

AFF

"the only way my opponent can achieve his burden is if the vigilante is perfect." This statement is completely illogical, once again it points to a crucial flaw in my opponents case. Justified actions can have risks, that doesn't mean we can't do them. Yes there are possibilities for failure in all things, so what would my opponent propose? Sitting in a corner until we starve because the Food could be undercooked and the water carry a disease? The Burden of the negative was to prove as a GENERAL RULE we had to negate. All he has argued is that there are certain times in which vigilantism COULD be bad. This Is outside of the Framework once again. The Framework needs to be followed as it allows a place to debate so that both sides can initiate clash and to limit the focus. It also also the debate to be even as neither side can all of a sudden switch the focus of the debate.

This Response my opponent gives doesn't even address many of the points I made. The Police example targeted the argument he made that "a single individual would carry out everything him/herself." I point which he seems to have dropped. I also don't present the Police example as an argument for my case as he says but rather to point out the absurdity of his claim. "if a vigilante works in a group, the punishment will ultimately be up to the individual" And if this group has standards? Or discarding that possibility you should look to my contention three on regulation. My opponent contends "However, when a group is acknowledge to have power and is accepted by the presiding form of government, as in your example, then it is a peaceful revolution of power. The police system, a form of government, is being replaced by another form of government, the so-called vigilantes." Just another example of How Vigilantism can be a form of Revolution. He doesn't tell us why my analysis is wrong. Why can't an instance of vigilantism, recognized by a community, but still acting outside the law, lead to a reformation of a new government entirely in that community? My opponent never addresses this.

C2, My opponent contends that "Vigilantes think that they are better than the government, and thus don't need it, and revolution is replacing a government with another one" however his assumption here is wrong. According to who, do vigilantes believe they are better? vigilantes believe that the rule of law is sacred and must be upheld when government fails. A community is lacking in police enforcement. Vigilantes Appear and enforce the law. these vigilantes are officially recognized by the community. They become part of a new government. This fits under the definition of revolution, and it was done via vigilantism.

C3, My opponents continuation of the wal-mart example is incorrect. The man marking down prices would not be a vigilante but either a revolutionary, by trying to forcibly change the government, or a criminal. Vigilantes need to enforce the Law, so unless the prices are unlawful there is no vigilantism.
Implications of C3.
Everyone wants to survive. This is uncontested.
So from there using Smiths market system, the vigilante if he wants to protect his "profit" ie his security. He needs to find an equilibrium between vigilante action and his security. If his actions are too harsh, his security is jeopardized as other will take him down in turn. If is actions are not enough his security will be jeopardized because crime will run rampant. Thus intuitively, he regulates himself. Refer to my case for the full analysis.

Remember judges to look at the framew
littlelacroix

Con

Because the framework for the round is a little off, I will only submit points of crystallization in order to remain as close to LD format as possible.

To start off, I would once again like to mention that because both sides of the resolution have the same value, the one that best upholds it through the criterion and contentions deserves the win in the round.

Moving on to the criterion clash. Preserving Communal Security versus Locke's right to revolution. I have two points on this 1) my opponent is constantly comparing communal security and self-preservation without any actual evidence. He just automatically believes the two are the same. If Wal-Mart had the opportunity to crush its competition, then it would, but there laws against that. Yet another point for the Negative side. Government is vital in communal security. In anarchy, Wal-Mart would crush its competition, but government protects all. 2) Revolution IS NOT the same as Vigilantism!!! Vigilantes think that they are better than and don't need the government. That means that they don't fix or overthrow the government, they just ignore it. In revolution, a government will be present, just replacing one for another. My opponent attempts to attack this by saying that a legitimate government may not replace the existing one, but that will just lead to another revolution until they replace it with one that does work. Vigilantism is the first step to anarchy, thus hurting communal security, and Revolution is the first step to a legitimate government, thus helping communal security. Therefore the Affirmative's criterion actually fits best on the Negative side. By upholding the right to revolt and communal security, we can only achieve justice on the Negative side.

The next voting issue in the round is based on common ground. Both sides in this debate are guilty of arguing in perfect situation for each side, Aff - the perfect vigilante, Neg - vigilantes failing all the time, but we need to look to revolution in addition to vigilantism. First of all, looking to vigilantes, even if we do look in the middle, is Vigilantism a credible system if they fail approximately half the time? No, but let's look to revolution. Even if a revolution does fail, they always can revolt again until they have a legitimate government. If a vigilante does fail, can they go back and unpunish a criminal? No, that is why looking to a common ground, revolution always will end in success and vigilantism has the potential to fail, so we need to look to revolution only in order to achieve justice, and thus it is the only justified action.

For the final voting issue in this round, I would like to look to the Wal-Mart argument. First of all, Vigilantism is a person just running through the store slashing prices. He wants to enforce the law (of "Always low prices") by slashing the prices, but what if he sells a big screen TV for ten bucks? Is that helpful to the community (the store as a whole)? No, and besides, if the government really has the biggest problems, would it make sense to run around to every last item and slash the prices? Again, this is a no and only when the community revolts and creates Target, they change everything into a decent store rather than changing things here and there. Starting things anew. If Wal-Mart really has that many problems, then it would be easier and more justified to start again.

Looking to this round, only the Negative can provide the most justice, communal security and allow for the right to revolt when the government fails. Since I have proven that Vigilantism IS NOT a form of revolution and that revolution can create the most amount of success, we must look to only the Negative side to achieve anything of any value in this round and thus I can see nothing but a Negative ballot.

I would like to thank all the judges in this round, but most of all my opponent for creating a very good and interesting round. Good luck in the rest of the tournament.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
lol no that isn't what I was voting on :) If you want the detailed version then I can post.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
"Video vigilantism" I think should never be a crime -- following criminals, catching them on video.
Posted by Lazy 7 years ago
Lazy
I think vigilantism is most necessary when the government doesn't obey it own laws. Think about what is happening in Mexico with all the drug cartails . Some of police and politicans in Mexico are involved in helping the drug dealers ruin the country.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
I'd like to point out that the KKK did enforce Jim Crow laws until their end of the 1960s ... of course the end of Jim Crow didn't end the KKK.
Posted by littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
Ok, now if that's all your voting on, that's weak, and besides, Batman doesn't punish the criminal, he only captures them. He believes in the government, lol
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I guess you could say that I am PRO Batman
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
Thats fine... you have 2 days left, I am in no hurry
Posted by littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
I'll just do some points of crystallization/summary, but it might take me a little bit to get it posted because I'm pretty busy.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
You can do whichever....

A full rebuttal, A Summary, or nothing
Posted by littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
I actually don't know. I was just thinking that myself, but I think that I get another rebuttal. The only thing is that I've seen it done both ways
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Radicalguy44 6 years ago
Radicalguy44
MetzlittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 Metz 7 years ago
Metz
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 littlelacroix 7 years ago
littlelacroix
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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 Eduren 7 years ago
Eduren
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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:41 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
MetzlittlelacroixTied
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