The Instigator
TheCategorical
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

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 7 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,424 times Debate No: 7763
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

TheCategorical

Pro

Hi, I need to punch the holes out of my case and really need critiques on this new case before I go to nationals. Please only accept if you really are thorough in attacking and give all attacks you think about or critiques. No attack is stupid, just KILL MY CASE.
Vigilantism is justified when government has failed to enforce the law
V: Societal welfare
VC: Will to Power of societal order
Thesis: The will to power is an individual's struggle against their surroundings that culminates in personal growth, and the ability to assert power. Vigilantism is justified through this struggle against the crime that has been committed. In Will to Power Nietzsche writes:
"My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power."

If the government (the highest power) has failed to uphold the law then the vigilante is justified at working for the top, for this is the natural state. Thus, Vigilantism is Justified when the government fails to uphold the law(which is essentially relinquishing power over people). Since the will of the people is being upheld
Observation1: The affirmative is stating that all actions are manifestations of power and a want for the ideas behind it to reach supremacy. EX. Why would I do charity? Because I want to help children and promote the idea by example.
Observation 2: Will to Power explains how an individual set out to reach his goals. The vigilante's goal is to maintain a status quo in which the society is neutral or better. This can further be explained in the definition "who decides to take the law into his own hands" meaning that said individual will fix the law. Thus, it can be understood that the object that is being altered is societal laws.
Contention 1: How vigilantes both work for themselves and others
It can be understood that a government's priority is its citizens, however will to power may seem to contradict that. Or does it?
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., wrote—clearly within a line of thought already well-established by then:
It has been said that "[t]he most basic function of any government is to provide for the security of the individual and of his property." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 539 (1966) (WHITE, J., dissenting). And unless Government safeguards its own capacity to function and to preserve the security of its people, society itself could become so disordered that all rights and liberties would be endangered. As Chief Justice Hughes reminded us in Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 574 (1941):
Civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses.
1.White: Government must "provide for the security of the individual and of his property."
2.Powell: Government cannot do that unless it "safeguards its own capacity to function."
3.Hughes: Without "an organized society maintaining public order," there can be no liberty.
4.Yoo: Our government must therefore protect "the security of the United States."

There, in just a short set of remarks by members of the professional legal class, by what seems like an unassailable logical progression, we can see the clear development of what ought to be a deeply troublesome idea: only a government whose primary interest is protecting its own institutional existence can serve the function that its citizens believe—apparently mistakenly—ought to be its primary interest, namely, the security of those citizens and their interests. Thus disproving will to power as a narcissistic term.

Cont: 2 Vigilantism's on your side ( To the tune of nationwide)
Some may ask, Well, what if the vigilante fails? I will answer truly. He probably will but this is how all governments are formed. Through trial and error he will work his way up. He will essentially be our patriotic fighter. He works to help us and if he fails, then we mourn. However with every vigilante the will to maintain the societal order will grow. Then, with an incredible barrage someone will achieve.
A: Misdirected conceptions make the vigilante harm society
This is not true. The vigilante first represents himself and then his people. The vigilante will work for his people to establish a societal order. If he fails in that will, it will be not because of him being. "Vigilantes" who have misconceptions about their will or people aren't really trying to enforce the law or better it, only to achieve a knock off or their personal justice which is not a vigilante. To put it in simple terms if the vigilante tries to enforce the law, but isn't really, then that isn't the will of maintaining the social order and thus enforcing the law.
B: the laws are bad.
Again, I will point out that if the "vigilante" tries to enforce bad laws, he will be disturbing the societal order. This runs contradictory to the earlier statement that his will is to promote the societal order. Some may point out that the definition says to take the law into one's hands. This, however, does not imply that the laws will be enforced. This can mean that the laws will be changed and then enforced or some other sequence.
alto2osu

Con

Though all you've asked for is a rip-apart of your case for this term's LDV resolution, I have to establish a negative advocacy to make this work. I will do so when necessary to refute one of your contentions. Also, to make this easier, I've essentially added numbered arguments to your original case and posted below. I've also argued this as if I were critiquing an LDV case, competitively speaking. It won't follow informal norms of debate.

Standards:

V: Societal Welfare

1) What is this? How is it that I'm supposed to strive for something or achieve it if I don't have a definition and analysis for the most important standard in the round?
2) Human rights will always outweigh, as they are a precursor to all welfare, and societies must uphold them to achieve welfare;
3) The negative advocacy can achieve this value better, as it advocates a true change, rather than a negligible, dangerous bandaid fix. (Note: my negative advocacy is to propose violent revolution as an alternative point of solvency to vigilantism).

C: Will to Power

1) Will to power does not guarantee societal welfare because individuals will not always act for social good. See Paulo Fereire (oppressed often become oppressors), and you have no warrants as to how you can guarantee a vigilante will work for only social good.
2) The will to power referred to by Nietzsche is not grounds to affirm. He isn't giving you a link to societal welfare in his analysis; your card doesn't tell me how the will to power will lead to more welfare, just more power struggles.
3) Turn: Will to power will cause more unrest and lead to less overall stability, which in turns leads to less welfare as individuals squabble over who has the power to portion out justice. Factions ensue, as the quotation states. In my negative case, I have specific cards that prove vigilantes and vigilante committees, drawn together by commonalities, will squabble between each other to deliver justice and end up fighting each other more than establishing justice. Furthermore, these vigilantes are often funded by a corrupt gov't so that they kill each other off, rather than making headway against an illegitimate state.

Thesis:

1) The will of the people is not upheld through vigilantism~ the will of the vigilante or his committee is upheld, with no check on judicial power and no procedures by which to conduct justice. I have cards that detail human rights violations perpetrated by these vigilantes due to their volatile and unstructured foundations. Procedural justice cannot be maintained because there are no checks to bias (esp. since vigilantes gather in like groups...what a criminal is of a different race or religion than those who seek to punish him?)

Observations:

I lumped these together. What impact do they have on the round? You are so unclear about why it is that these issues affect ground or interpretation that, as a debater, I'd just skip them. These win you no favor, nor do they help us understand the round any better than we did before. You need terminal analysis that actually finishes up these and turns them into cohesive thoughts. After writing cases for this resolution, I found no resolutional analysis necessary. At all.

Contention 1:

While the progression may be true, this path leads inevitably to some sort of anarchical state. By #3, we've lost our liberties, and the government has become illegitimate and oppressive. My negative advocacy would be that, at this point, retaining the gov't but reinforcing its laws only serves to reify a bad system of gov't which clearly needs to be overthrown. Hence, revolution will solve for justice and societal welfare infinitely better than vigilantes, who won't be able to succeed in reestablishing liberties in the first place due to their inherent violation of human rights and their inability to maintain stability as a procedural justice system will be able to.

That, and the warrants you have here don't establish much of anything, except that the US seems to favor a social contract. This smacks of being US-specific, which is patently abusive. And where'd the Yoo guy come from? Did you give a card for that?

Contention 2:

1) Warrants? What historical or empirical evidence can you give me that proves vigilantes will be able to establish or maintain social order? I can give an impressive list of failed attempts at establishing a new order via vigilantism, mostly because of the myriad problems vigilantes encounter when trying to be just on an individual level. Not only that, but saying that a vigilante will be able to establish a new order is contradictory to your position: vigilantes work within an existing system. They make little attempt to change the system. Revolution is clearly not vigilantism, and you are joining them.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
obvisouly 1 round goes to con because aff cannot refute
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
A one round debate? Obviously goes to CON.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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 Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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 commonprotocol 7 years ago
commonprotocol
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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 FunnyFUNNY 7 years ago
FunnyFUNNY
TheCategoricalalto2osuTied
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