The Instigator
Mikirta
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Mdal
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/10/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,949 times Debate No: 6872
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

Mikirta

Pro

Batman.........thats my argument :]
Mdal

Con

Mikirta I couldn't be more pleased with the debate you just started.

At first, like most people, I would say vigilantism sounds fine. Especially when we are talking about my favorite caped crusader! However lets talk about what happens when we get people who are less genteel.

Argument 1 The Punisher
Lets stay with someone (still fictional) but a lot scarier. Lets talk about Frank Castle AKA the Punisher. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Frank Castle is the perfect case for why vigilantism is negative, even if the government isn't doing its job perfectly...
The Punisher kills his perceived enemies...he doesn't take them into jail, he doesn't allow for any concept of "law" or "rules" or really any outside view points. He is a man who allows himself to be judge, jury and executioner...sure in the comic world he has unerring aim and never makes mistakes about who he kills, but lets talk about vigilantism in reality for a while.

Subpoint A- It allows for a massive increase in overall violence.
If we aren't following the law (if we are practicing vigilantism) then what keeps people from harming one another? The answer is nothing. What we are looking at is the breakdown of societies basic rules and pillars. What is the big deal though, right? What happens when society begins to break down?

We can look to Thomas Hobbes about what happens to us when civilization and the respect for its laws become disrespected and ignored: "Life becomes brutish nasty and short." I like life enough to want to avoid that...so I (along with the vast majority of people) have a healthy respect for laws.

Subpoint B- Vigilantism allows for big old mistakes (innocents get hurt).
Laws and police and lawyers are rarely well liked by most people I mean I laugh just like everyone else at Lawyer jokes (My older brother is a lawyer and his favorite is: What is the difference between a lawyer and a shark? Sharks are cheaper.) However lawyers, police and laws help us to avoid getting the "wrong guy" we have an entire process based on "innocent until proven guilty"...what happens when we by pass that? The answer is that MORE innocents are harmed, we begin to punish more innocents.

Subpoint C- Decent men and women who want to help will get hurt.
Many people who would put on a costume and try to fight crime simply won't have the chops. (God bless Batman, Spiderman and the rest for doing what they do but I haven't been bitten by a radioactive spider lately) I don't know about you Mikirta, or you dear reading audience, but I am not able to fight 10 men with guns by myself...heck even if I had a gun of my own I would probably be toast pretty quickly... Allowing vigilantism to flourish will allow for many good meaning ladies and gents to get way in over their heads and be hurt.

There are other reasons why vigilantism can be bad, but I will leave it at.
We can always check back to this debate: Same Bat Website, Any Bat Time. (I really like Batman)
Debate Round No. 1
Mikirta

Pro

Mikirta forfeited this round.
Mdal

Con

Alrighty...because Mikirta probably has something going on keeping her from the website (which I completely understand). I will just stand by what I have already laid out. :D
Debate Round No. 2
Mikirta

Pro

Sorry I was in Harvard for the Debate Invitational, so I haven't really had access to a computer.
I would like to begin by pointing out the flaws in the argument in which Mdal has presented.

I am not going to state any real examples for refutation points, but I would like you to keep Batman in realization. ( I LOVE Batman too :] )

Argument 1:
He uses the example of *The Punisher* for his example of negative vigilantism. His warrants for this negativity is the fact that *The Punisher* kills his enemies (i.e. criminals) instead of properly administering them to the 'concepts of law' (i.e. law enforcement).

I would like to point out thought that if he were not to kill them, there would not be a proper administration of law anyways for the following reasons:

1) The fact that this resolution talks about the government not being able to enforce laws in a society, basically justifies the act of those who are trying to uphold these values. The ideal of rule of law states that "no person is above the law", so in knowing this, if we as citizens want our laws and rights protected, and the government can't do so, it is because of the obligation of rule of law and justice that we must assure criminals are punished.

2) The fact of these criminals being punished by death can be moralized because of the fact they committed the crime. Even in present day society, a criminal who is found guilty for a felony such as murder can still receive the death penalty. So why is it when a vigilante who protects citizens are not justified, yet a corrupt or even practical government receives no complaints.

Subpoint A:
His tag line basically states that by allowing vigilantism to be justified, will allow for a massive augment in violence.

First, I would like to state, seeing the current stasis of the society being violent already from the lack of governmental participation, there would already be a massive affiliation of violence.
By actually justifying vigilantism, we reduce the amount of violence because we are ensuring protection to those who are innocent.

He inquires how we can stop people from harming each other. Well in a corrupted society like this, the social contract in not in effect because the government cannot protect the people. The only real way to ensure protection is vesting trust into a vigilante who promotes justice.

He also uses a quote from Thomas Hobbes stating that life would be brutish and short if there were no respect for the law. Well if there is no one protecting the law, that is what happens. By having a vigilante, we can not only replace the lack of stability from the government, but we can also regard the laws.

Subpoint B:
He states that innocent people can get hurt, and that lawyers and policemen, and etc. will protect them. Though, as I stated before, this resolution identifies with a corrupt society, a government that is not able to enforce laws, so therefore without a vigilante, we cannot protect the innocents anyway.

In many cases also, the protection from getting the 'wrong guy' is not properly administered because there are many cases in which a government has pardoned those who did crimes, and punished those who haven't.

Subpoint C:
He states that the people who try to stop crime will get hurt. He even uses an example demonstrating himself. The vigilantes' are not being forced to go out and fight these crimes. It is because they believe in justice and protecting the innocence of their societies, that they sacrifice themselves in order to reserve justice. That is what this resolution asks for. The preservation of justice in a society.

As a clarification point, spiderman can not be seen as a vigilante because the the definition of a vigilante is a person like batman ( no powers basically), so for these reasons you should affirm. :]
Mdal

Con

Mdal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikirta

Pro

i stand by my attack until Mdal rebuilds his case ^_^
Mdal

Con

Mdal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mikirta

Pro

Seeing as how Mdal had never refuted my arguments I guess I win........ ^_^
Mdal

Con

Mdal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikirta 8 years ago
Mikirta
thats true skull man
but your name does imply that assumption HaHa
thank you for your comments
batman is not my case for nationals i assure you
Posted by limevortex69 8 years ago
limevortex69
lol interesting debate :D
Posted by brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
i need to learn how to type. might not mught. or remember to spell check my bad :)-
Posted by brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
Sorry your not you. my typing problem
Posted by brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
I never said anywhere that I do that. I wont put my debates up here. Just like you said "My case is My case." all I am saying is, if you want to win nationals and do well in this debate, pratice mught help. and I dont think an entire affermative constructive of "batman" helps you get a basis.
-ps just because i am a skull doesnt mean i WAS trying to bite you head off just trying to help
Posted by Mikirta 8 years ago
Mikirta
Well I'm sorry I don't have time to do that like you. My case is my case. This debate doesn't reflect how seriously I take LD. I think it is ridiculous and uneeded to tell us to take this topic seriously, ok. I was going to use this as a basis to structure my case. So chill with the comments.......
Posted by brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
people need to take this seriously. if you want to win nationals it would help to actually debate your case and not just batman.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
"Not stupid enough to post my case on this debate." If you're an active debater, by the time you've posted your case on here it's outdated. The case I posted for the January topic was a rough draft. I work on my cases on a daily basis. So it's a weak excuse to use to warrant not posting a case.
Posted by Mikirta 8 years ago
Mikirta
I was also kidding about the whole 'Batman is my argument'.
I just wanted my opponent to post the arguments so I could refute them.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Mikirta 8 years ago
Mikirta
I am taking this topic very seriously, Starkey. I am also a 'LDer'.
I am not stupid enought to post my case on this debate, but I still try to bestow most of my value and warrants, though no really.
All I ask is when it is finished that you leave comment that I may improve on. This topic determines whether I go to nationals :]
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
MikirtaMdalTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mdal 8 years ago
Mdal
MikirtaMdalTied
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 brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
MikirtaMdalTied
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 
Vote Placed by baconator 8 years ago
baconator
MikirtaMdalTied
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 Mikirta 8 years ago
Mikirta
MikirtaMdalTied
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 soccerkid411 8 years ago
soccerkid411
MikirtaMdalTied
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 FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
MikirtaMdalTied
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 wlola_23 8 years ago
wlola_23
MikirtaMdalTied
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