The Instigator
Metz
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold 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: 2/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,927 times Debate No: 7125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Metz

Pro

I affirm

For this debate I value Morality. Morality is simply defined as the differentiation between right and wrong. As Nietzsche wrote Nietzsche master morality is the morality of the strong-willed. In the prehistoric state, "the value or non-value of an action was derived from its consequences "For these strong-willed men, the 'good' is the noble, strong and powerful, while the 'bad' is the weak, cowardly, timid and petty. Morality is designed to protect that which the strong-willed man values, and for slave and master, as "Fear is the mother of morality" Master morality begins in the 'noble man' with a spontaneous idea of the good, then the idea of bad develops as what is not good. "man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating" In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality.

This Value of Morality is best upheld by the criterion of Preserving the Will to Power:
The will to power is an individual's struggle against their surroundings that culminates in personal growth, self-overcoming, and self- perception and the ability to assert the power they hold over others. In his book Will to Power German Philosopher Friedrich 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." As the will to power is an individual's struggle against their surroundings, Vigilantism is justified through this struggle against the crime that has been committed. As Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil " life is precisely the Will to Power" and further elaborates ""The Will to Power is the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation" revealing the will to power as "the principle of the synthesis of forces." Nietzsche suggests that people and animals really want power; living in itself appears only as a subsidiary aim — something necessary to promote one's power. In defense of his view, Nietzsche appeals to many instances in which people and animals willingly risk their lives in order to promote their power, most notably in instances like competitive fighting and warfare. Nietzsche seems to take part of his inspiration from the ancient Homeric Greek texts he knew well: Greek heroes and aristocrats or "masters" did not desire mere living but wanted power, glory, and greatness.

I will now provide the following definitions for clarity in this round:
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: a system of rules recognized by a country or community. (Oxford)
Enforce: To give force or effect to (a law, etc.); to compel obedience to."(Blacks Law Dictionary)
Failed: To be unable to (Princeton)
Government: the official legal governing body of a state.(oxford)

I will offer the following observations for further clarity:

1. There is a definite difference between what is Justified and what is Just. Justified simply implies permissible, or allowable. Thus the Burden for Aff is to prove Vigilantism to be allowed when the government fails to uphold the law and the Neg must prove Vigilantism to be not-allowed when the government fails to uphold the law.

2. It is the Mutual burden of both Aff and Neg to prove their side as a general rule, not an absolute. Thus neither side may circumstantially negate or Affirm but rather must prove their side as a general rule, allowing for special exceptions. This is to ensure a level playing field for both sides and follows the spirit of debate.

3. The language of the resolution implies morally justified, so both sides must argue whether or not vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law, according to moral principles. This is because we do not know the social structure, and thus cannot make any pragmatic impacts, as these are unique to individual societies.

Contention 1: The government failing to uphold the law justifies the actions of the vigilante.
Under a governmental system the government is the highest power, thus has the ability to apply and punish laws. However, in a case such as one advocated by the resolution, the government has failed to uphold the law. As the government is the basis of the law this essentially means that the government is illegitimate and without any de facto power. If the Government, the highest power that asserts its power on the citizens according to its singular ideals of structure, has failed, the vigilante is justified at working for the top, and exercising his own "will to power". This struggle against his surroundings is justified as the government has essentially relinquished power over the people. Thus, Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law.

Contention 2: The Will to Power is the surest way of reaching the Platonic ideal.
Plato's Theory of Forms says that we observe a shadow or reflection of true, perfect "Forms." If you call the law a shadow of true [insert value here], then there must be a true, perfect form that those laws might take. Thus, such correct laws must exist, and it is possible to find them out. Through the will to power, for everyone acts as to present a primacy of his power, we will create and implement the correct set of laws. When as Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil "The "individual" stands out, and is obliged to have recourse to his own law-giving, his own arts and artifices for self-preservation, self-elevation, and self-deliverance. The Will to Power encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement, this union of ideas is the foundation of morality" The government in question has failed to enforce the law, thus a union of the "will to power" will serve as the best way to enforce the "most" correct system of laws. Vigilantism does this better since the government has failed to enforce the law, vigilantism is Justified as it is the best way to promote the "correct laws." As such laws come from the union of the will to power.
snelld7

Con

I did not mean to accept this debate
Debate Round No. 1
Metz

Pro

Ok Um... Right...
snelld7

Con

You don't believe me? Start a new debate with this exact same resolution, and I'll debate you if it makes you happy. Oh, and you can stay pro/affirmative.
Debate Round No. 2
Metz

Pro

No No I believe you, That was just sort of meant as,

Um Okaay... so what do we do now?
snelld7

Con

lol I have no idea. Can't you cancel debates? If not then i guess we have to just talk back and forth until it ends.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrinal71996 8 years ago
mrinal71996
haha
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Cool... if anyone wants to debate me on this(I want AFF since I need to make sure it works before I through it out there at nat. quals) message me, challenge me, or comment on my profile
Posted by gamingmaster42 8 years ago
gamingmaster42
lol @ "I did not mean to accept this debate"
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
K...type ur case....and challenge me
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
please do
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
I'll go NEG for you both if it will help you two out. I also need the help because NEG is my weaker of the two cases.
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Oh, right, hah.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Um... The Nietzsche case is an Affirmative....
Posted by Mickeyrocks 8 years ago
Mickeyrocks
Challenge me, I'm writing an affirmative. We can do it in LD format if you'd like, just make it a 3round debate and you can make the first round useless for you, and I'll just give smaller speeches in my 1/2AR. I'd like to see an effective Nietzsche case.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I have an Updated version of this case with the warrants attached and The Value and contentions clarified and fixed.... this was draft 1, I was hoping to test how it worked...

and it can be argued that evolution promoted the best traits as the others died off because they had flaws or couldn't sustain life. Although a better defense for that contention would be Adam Smith's invisible hand...(which pains me to argue capitalism effective, but I need to do what I must)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Metzsnelld7Tied
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
Metzsnelld7Tied
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 TheCategorical 8 years ago
TheCategorical
Metzsnelld7Tied
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 snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Metzsnelld7Tied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Metzsnelld7Tied
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 Bjork-Taco 8 years ago
Bjork-Taco
Metzsnelld7Tied
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