EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
134

There is a need for vigilantes in America

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary (PRO)
There is a need for vigilantes in America
Let's start with the basics. Vigilantes are an awesome thing in dc comics, but most people would argue that the police do the job well enough. But what if there's a massive police layoff? What if the vigilante does the job better? I'm not talking about groups of people with unhuman capabilities. I'm talking about good samaritans. People who help others, remain unnamed, and are still happy. These are the people we need taking care of America. We don't need the police officers who do the job for money or fame. We need the vigilantes who will be humble, kind, and still take care of us.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-08 09:44:18
| Speak Round
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997 (CON)
Vigilantes in America is not a knew thing, the first marshals in the west, were bounty hunters who hunted for cash. The problem with having them in a society now, is countability. Their needs to be checks and balances in a society, by having to much power or free will to enforce your will and judgement, even as simply as obtaining someone, can cause you to try to get away with more and more. As we have seen in the past people who enforce their judgment upon others, especially outside of the law, examples- KKK, black panthers, ect, can cause the ones who get the judgment to be persecuted, and most times then not in an unjust, prejudice, and unfair way. The only way someone truly can get checks and balances, is for them to have accountability with those who make the laws, and by the people, and if that is the case, then they aren't really vigilantes at all. 
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-09 04:16:43
| Speak Round
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary (PRO)
"and if that is the case, then they aren't really vigilantes at all"

Exactly. We need vigilantes, not these people to whom you are referring to.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-09 06:58:57
| Speak Round
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997 (CON)
But as I stated before the only way for someone to not strike their own justice on their beliefs, or religion, is by accountability. So me saying that if they are elected then they are not vigilantes. I was stating this as that as showing that those that are elected have the ability to have checks and balances. It was a strike at the so called accountability of the vigilante. Now for my second point of the argument, if someones child is accused of a crime, what's to stop the vigilante for attacking the so called crime doer in a forceful manner. Lawyers and cops just don't arrest someone , because of due process. They have to build a case against that person so that they can be judged by their peers, they have to believe that the person is guilty without a doubt. otherwise there would be a witch trial, for everyone that someone does not like. The accusations without proof would be unbearable. And again those who are doing the arresting have to have accountability to those who are only accused of a crime, not proven guilty of one. 
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-10 08:07:05
| Speak Round
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary (PRO)
"They have to build a case against that person so that they can be judged by their peers, they have to believe that the person is guilty without a doubt."

In every Arrow episode, there is a case, or a form of proof, to dignify the arrest or execution of the target. Vigilantes don't just arrest people and fight crime. The way I understand it, being a vigilante means you hide behind a mask while you do great things for society. There are "vigilantes" who visit children's hospitals, as well as "vigilantes" who help the police fight crime.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-11 11:12:11
| Speak Round
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997 (CON)
As mentioning arrow you forget that this for of vigilante is fictional, most vigilantes who have lived, strike out their own justice, use guns, and taint the evidence. Evidence collected illegally or by a 3rd party who has not done the proper procedure, will have tainted the evidence. As well as proof of the poisonous tree, any evidence collected cannot be used in court if it is seen as tainted in any fashion.  Now the definition of vigilante is "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate." Now that does not mean great things, it typically means that they feel the form of justice is not fair. That could be seen as something simple as going to sex offender list, and making someone life miserable, the problem with this form is 1. People on the list are put in their for many things, and 2. anything they do will typically not be able to be used in court, so while they may hurt the person, and have charges after them, they won't stop the person from doing anything if in fact they did do something. And the other solution is killing, but who would like someone to kill people in the world, because of what they only view as right. 


Return To Top | Posted:
2021-03-15 03:43:05
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997
will do thank you
Posted 2021-04-08 01:23:20
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary
I don't know. It could be because I am the PRO, and not the CON? Maybe try messaging Admin.
Posted 2021-04-06 01:41:19
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997
I have a question,why is it that is shows you as the winner, put both of us have no points?
Posted 2021-04-06 01:30:18
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary
i get it, i am too.
Posted 2021-03-16 02:31:23
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997
Sorry about my grammar loll, I am in class and didn't want to get caught so I wrote really fast, i'm actually a decent writer.
Posted 2021-03-16 01:29:19
ZackDavis1997ZackDavis1997
Actually by legal definition a vigilante is someone who breaks a law, only the movies and tv shows show that as a vigilante. Comic books and movies have that as something that we see, but in real life and real definition is someone who law with out legal consent. And in real life vigilantes such as jack idema, or stephan marshall, butchered and killed people and in extreme ways for justice. And some where not proven guilty in a court of law
Posted 2021-03-16 01:27:15
Shadow RevolutionaryShadow Revolutionary
I just want to add to the last argument of Zack's...

The vigilantes who "strike out" their own justice are vigilantes until that point. Once they break the law or do something unmoral, or unconstitutional, they are no longer a vigilante. We need vigilantes, not people who are called vigilantes, only to break the law later.

Posted 2021-03-16 00:50:20
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None