The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

in order to prevent illegal logging and poaching this house supports vigilante actions

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 77268
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




do you ever wonder what can possibly do to end the plague of deforestation caused by illegal logging around the world? does it worry you that we cant seem to stop the creeping catastrophe of animal poaching? these seem to be hopeless problems with no solutions. but vigilante actions got us handled.
vigilante comes from the Spanish word vigilare meaning~ to keep watch~. a vigilante is someone who gets together with a group of a like-minded people to protect their property or local community. these type of actions are generally taken when its felt that the police or government in general aren't providing sufficient protection and people need to make a stand to protect themselves and their property.

so by my starting paragraph this debate is mainly about vigilantes and their actions against illegal logging and poaching.

vigilante actions on how to stop illegal logging and poaching:
physicist and engineer Tropher white , founder of the rain forest connection (vigilante group) he believes that he got a solution , and its all about smartphones , your smartphone to be precise -the ones your probably throwing away or trading in- creative use of up-cycled android smartphones powered by flexible solar panels is technology that can stop illegal logging and poaching on the spot.
that's a bold statement , but this idea could actually work in fact . it does work , as a RFC earlier pilot program in the forest of western Sumatra has already proved.

The proof:
the proof that this idea would fly came on the very first day the initial project began operations in Sumatra in June 2013 . 4 phones , hidden within 135 hectares of the Kalawit Gibbon sanctuary reserve forest , picked up the unmistakable sounds of chain saws . authorities responded -and kept responding for two weeks- eventually , the loggers took the hint and departed the area . as White recently told scientific American. after a year they have not returned. Now that's a victory!

in the end this whole thing wouldn't been done without any vigilantism actions


I accept your challenge. Also, first round is supposed to be rules, not an argument.
Debate Round No. 1


well thanks for accepting my challenge, i think that i debate rules are already known its not a big deal, and since i already have my first argument I'd like to her your first argument
,good luck


Vigilante actions are borderline inhumane. Vigilantism states that you will enforce the law yourself without proper jurisdiction. Often times, a vigilante will take the law into their own hands, and will interpret it differently and then create their own punishment for breaking that law. First of all, there is no illegal logging in the United States. There is no illegal logging in Western Europe either. Illegal logging occurs primarily in the Brazilian Amazon. Illegal poaching occurs primarily in Africa against endangered species such as Elephants for their tusks and Tigers for their furs.

If you do not have lawful jurisdiction, who is to say that you should be listened to? Vigilantes do not know law, and they do not know specific consequences for breaking specific laws. If they were to run around in the Amazon shooting or maiming everyone that is part of the illegal logging operations, then that would be murder! If you lack authority, then the only way to make someone comply is with a gun, and no one deserves to lose their life because they are cutting down trees.

Vigilantes are very hard to control and have a different way of judgement.

Instead of having vigilantes, we need a better police force and a better judicial system. Like I said, this does not occur in the United States, it occurs in 3rd world nations that do not have a properly funded police force or their police force is corrupt.
Debate Round No. 2


n_u_h_a forfeited this round.


You have forfeited the round, so I shall declare myself victor, as you did not make any cohesive arguments or counter-arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Pericles// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, S&G, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was illogical, had inferior grammar, and forfeited a round.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for any points awarded besides Conduct. Pro did spend a round presenting his argument so votes that award anything besides Conduct need to explain why they are awarding those points. It is justified to award more than just conduct in the event of a full forfeit by one side but that's not the case here. (2) Arguments - it is not sufficient to just say that Pro was illogical. A good RFD should explain *why* Pro was illogical and how Con's logic was better and deserving of the win. (3) Lack of specific on S&G. You need to explain why Pro's grammar was inferior and how it affected readability.
Posted by dv0rak 2 years ago
Furthermore, could the Contender please elaborate on his/her last point:

"Instead of having vigilantes, we need a better police force and a better judicial system. Like I said, this does not occur in the United States*, it occurs in 3rd world nations that do not have a properly funded police force or their police force is corrupt."

I'm not sure if you're stating: "vigilantism does not occur in the United States", or "in the United States, there are only incorruptible properly funded police force."

Thank you,
Posted by dv0rak 2 years ago
It seems the Instigator mistook the nature of "vigilantee" with "vigil activists".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PericIes 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: My opinions on the subject are irrelevant, as I am looking at the debate objectively, so I do not need to explain the first two points. Pro forfeited a round, so conduct goes to Con. Pro had plenty of spelling and grammatical errors, such as "but vigilante actions got us handled" in the first paragraph. Didn't capitalize the first letter of the first word, and on top of that used a dependent clause as its own sentence. This is but one example of such linguistic negligence. Arguments go to Con because Pro based their entire argument off of the definition of the Spanish root of "vigilante," not off of the definition of the English word in question. Furthermore, Pro advocates enforcing the law with illegal action, which is hypocritical and a fallacy. Neither side used sources, so that point is a tie.