I affirm.

Definitions (Oxford American Dictionary)

Vigilantism is 'self-appointed people who undertake law enforcement in their community
without legal authority.' The implication is that criticisms of vigilante actions grounded in
the past or the status quo don't sufficiently serve as reasons to negate because those
groups’ actions wouldn't be consistent with the definition of vigilantism. In other words,
once a group of 'vigilantes' take an action that's inconsistent with the law, they are
criminals not vigilantes. Justified means 'to demonstrate or prove to be just or right.' To
enforce means ‘to compel observance of or compliance with a law.’ The law is ‘the
system of rules of a particular country recognized as regulating the actions of its members
and may enforce the imposition of penalties.’ The implication is that problems like
government enforcement of outdated or unenforceable laws don’t matter in relation to the
resolution because law must be recognizable.

1. The value is justice because, for an action to be justified as per the definition, it must
be consistent with justice. Justice, is defined as 'giving each their due.' All people are due
a systematic issuance of rights via the law. This is true because the law, in order to be the
law, must have equal application to all those under its jurisdiction; otherwise, crime
couldn’t exist because there’d be an unlimited amount of ways in which to justify
exceptions. Furthermore, a base notion of rights is necessary in order for humans to have
any worth; a society lacking fundamental rights essentially leaves itself open to being a
victim of mass atrocities like rape and genocide because said rights establish that those
acts are intrinsically wrong and that no person is due that treatment.

2. Enforcement of the law is the central means of establishing justice. This is true for a
couple reasons. First, the law functionally illustrates the difference between civil and
criminal activity in a given society. Criminal activity, in order to be such, must be a
deviation from the law, meaning that this break is inconsistent with justice. Second, the
law definitively justifies redressing criminal acts, meaning that enforcement of the law is
always consistent with justice. With this in mind, the necessary standard is minimizing
ineffective law enforcement. The criterion is a weighing standard; whoever best
minimizes ineffective law enforcement, at the end of the round, ought win.
Ineffectiveness can be quantified by how strictly the law is followed. This also puts a
burden on the negative to prove that lack of governmental AND vigilante law
enforcement is ultimately less ineffective than the affirmative world. Failure to establish
such means that you presume affirmative because all individuals have autonomy only
restricted by the rights of others, meaning that all actions are justified unless shown to be
in violation of a principle of justice. This means that absence any offense at the end of
the round linking to a standard you must affirm since vigilantism is justified until proven
unjust.

Therefore, I have several arguments

A. The absence of law enforcement leaves criminals unpunished. This is intuitively

true inasmuch as law enforcement entails the punitive end of deviance from the law;
subsequently, failure to enforce includes a failure to punish. This is problematic because
negating creates a situation in which criminals can commit more crimes, which puts the
rights and lives of law-abiders in danger, ultimately contributing to an increasingly
ineffective mode of law enforcement.

Furthermore, failure to punish criminals leaves the law with zero deterrent effect on
potential wrong-doers, meaning that the existence of the law in the negative world
becomes fruitless. In the negative world, the law’s reduction to frivolity contributes to an
absolute minimization of the effectiveness of law enforcement, meaning affirming
outweighs on sheer risk of a link at worst.

Additionally, lack of law enforcement blurs the criminal-victim distinction because

criminals are essentially treated the same as victims in the negative world. Failure to
establish the distinction between the two is the cornerstone of effective law enforcement
inasmuch as the ability to punish those who are wrong-doers and let the rights of civilians
flourish is founded on making sure that distinction exists; subsequently, negating directly
contributes to ineffective law enforcement.

Conversely, affirming establishes an alternative method of law enforcement when the

primary method, the government, has failed, meaning that I outweigh in terms of
probability because there’s a 100% chance of effective law enforcement in the affirmative
world.

B. Inaction engrains responsibility upon those who stand by as crimes are

committed. This is true because ignoring responsibility can lead to egregious rights
violations; i.e., not contributing money to an organization that will end a genocide when
being made aware of the impact of the donation necessarily means that the agent of
action, or in this case inaction, is condoning the continuity of the genocide. This is further
warranted by the fact that humans, and more specifically the agent of action in the
resolution, have cognitive thinking abilities and are able to understand the consequence
of inaction, thus making the agent of action necessarily responsible for their choice.

In terms of the resolution, vigilantism at the very least can serve as a means of citizens
acting responsibly when the government has failed to enforce the law. Failure to act in
light of criminal acts, then, leaves the hands of citizens standing idly by bloody; the
negative world, via a lack of responsible action, contributes to an ineffective means of
law enforcement that leaves people open to rights violations. Furthermore, negating can
make civilians criminals by tolerating criminal acts; this is true in the status quo (i.e.
harboring a fugitive inadvertently). This not only violates the standard, but has direct
implications linking back to the value. Conversely, affirming ensures that the law is
properly enforced via vigilantism, meaning I outweigh on magnitude because toleration
of crimes can exacerbate the problem of criminal behavior to an enormous degree.

C. Vigilantism acts as a check against governments that violate their own laws, and
subsequently, the rights of their constituency. Typically, governments do not contain
mechanisms that allow for citizen-establishment of law enforcement because it would be
counter-intuitive to the idea of governance; however, this ideology leaves citizens without
the ability to redress what their government does. This unchecked authority the
government wields can be used to abuse the citizenry, and without an alternative agent of
enforcement, people would have to simply withstand the abuse; however, in the
affirmative world, vigilantism can be used to ensure that the government remains loyal to
the law, meaning that affirming necessarily ensures effective law enforcement.
Conversely, negating leaves the door open for the government to commit whatever rights
violations it chooses to, meaning negating necessarily violates the standard.

D. Extra-Judicial law enforcement is necessary to ensure justice. This is true

inasmuch as it can’t be 100% guaranteed that the formal government can be everywhere
at once; as a result, the potential for crime in the negative world is increased.
Alternatively, vigilantism can be used to fill in the small gaps in the government’s
jurisdiction, meaning affirming links back to an effective enforcement of the law. This
benefit is unique to the affirmative because vigilantism is being used to solve back for the
inadequacies of the government.

Furthermore, vigilantism can be an even more effective means of ensure the law is
always enforced. Richard Neely writes:
“Introduction,” Take Back Your Neighborhood,” 1990, p. 23-24
What distinguishes citizens from the regular police are two attributes that , however,

make citizens more effective : First citizens have the manpower to than the regular police , when properly organized,

patrol in sufficient force so that criminals believe there is a high likelihood of

apprehension. Second, citizens can be active rather than reactive because they are
not burdened with doing the mountains of
regulating traffic, responding to domestic violence calls, investigating crimes after the fact or

paperwork that dominate the working day of uniformed officers.”

The implication is that vigilantism essentially saturates society with law enforcement,
meaning affirming outweighs in terms of magnitude. Additionally, vigilantism can be
swifter than formal enforcement of the law, failed or not, meaning that affirming
outweighs in terms of timeframe because criminal acts can be redressed more quickly,
making law enforcement more effective.

E. Vigilantism socially reaffirms the importance of adhering to the law. Richard

Neely 2:
The very act of organizing to protect from crime has the effect of a neighborhood

strengthening values concerning appropriate standards of public behavior.

traditional Because

a community police force allows a clear choice

volunteer patrols have a place for adolescents as young as fifteen (if properly supervised), adolescents to make

between "them" and "us." A community that goes to great lengths to racially and ethnically mixed blue-collar

exclude or, at least, control criminals and those likely to become criminals makes it
obvious what traits are utterly unacceptable in a person-voluntary able-bodied unemployment, panhandling, drug dealing, drug abuse, prostitution, brawling, larceny

”
and violence of any sort.

The implication is, via social disrespect of criminals through vigilantism, the ability to
effectively enforce the law is intrinsically increased because a clear delineation between
good and bad is made, which the government is failing to do as per the resolution.