the actual case has justified margins formatting and is meant to be presented as a photographic chart during the Aff constructive.  if you want the file in justified format, pm me your email. the idea is that the case is entitled vigilantism, the whole case has justified text, and the word vigilantism at the top of the case in the original document is justified. 

Vigilantism
I affirm, resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.  My standard for today’s round will be debate welfare.  This is defined as any action that can be characterized by a net benefit for the debate community. The contextual burden of the affirmative is to prove that vigilantism is justified and that the government has failed to enforce the law. 
C1: THE GOVT. HAS FAILED TO ENFORCE THE LAW
It is important to recognize that the word “has” recognizes past failures.  I maintain that the government has failed to enforce the law in multiple situations.  Governments have failed to withstand the test of time in the past: look to the Roman empire, the Macedonian empire, the Spartan civilization, multiple Chinese and Japanese regimes, and most recently Iceland.  There are many more.  At the point when a government ceases to exist, they are no longer capable of enforcing law.  Since, the collapse of many governments is a rule of empirics, we can make the basic assumption that at some point other governments are going to fail.  If a singular government must be specified, the best one to use would be the United States because it is widely regarded as having one of the most effective and just legal systems in the international community: The United States practice blood quantum policies which limit access to various public services to Native Americans and denies equal application of laws and basic rights.  Drug possession laws specifically target minorities and the underprivelaged.  Powder and crack cocaines are basically the same in potency.  However, the required amount of crack needed to be charged with possession is much less than powder cocaine.  Crack cocaine is predominantly purchased by the underprivelaged and minorities, while powder is purchased predominantly by the privelaged.  The justice system is racist in that it favors the majority and the privelaged.  45% more Caucasians use marijuana than African Americans, but over 90% of marijuana possession arrests are African American.  The arrest rate Is highly disproportionate.  The U.S. does not allow homosexuals to give blood fearing disease and perpetuating untrue stereotypes which hold down equal members of society.  The United States has nuked more times than any other nation.  They practice subcritical nuclear testing on Sheshone lands.  The Native American lands over one thousand times.  This is a violation of internat law.
C2: RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS
“Vigilantism” is defined as the actual text of the word.  “Justified” is defined as “spacing words so that lines end evenly at the margin”.  For example, the National Forensics League rules are justified, the IHSA rules are justified, and Mein Kampf is not justified.  “When the government has failed to enforce the law” is simply a phrase used to indicate a governmental failure with no implication that vigilantism is meant to rectify the failed enforcement.  There are mulitiple reasons to prefer this interpretation:
1.    Predictabliity – This is the most predictable definition with less room for one-sided-ness or obscurity.  Every major dictionary and professional on the subject of margin justification uses the exact same definition as opposed to the vague conceptions and multiple interpretations of justification supplied by legal theorists and philosophers.
2.    Brightline – as opposed to counterdefinitions which rely on vaguely interpreted conceptions, our burden is absolute – it is either clearly met or failed.  This makes the objective of the round more concrete.
3.    Fairness – School’s that have more access to philosophical and legal scholars will have an extreme advantage over school’s that don’t have this capability.  By using this interpretation, everyone can access the same definitions without being forced to spend vast amounts of resources and time.
4.    Education – In order to make sure presenting you with a diagram of justified margins was allowed, we checked with the tab room about any rules preventing the presentation of graphic evidence.  Multiple people involved in debate for a long time were unsure about its debate legality.  Eventually we were given a copy of the rules.  After some searching, we discovered that we could present you with charts.  The tournament director was unsure about the legality of the action, but he supposed that it was not illegal based on Lincoln-Douglas Debate Competition Rules number 4 point F.  This increases the educational exploration about the rules of debate and their applications.  This also allows Lincoln-Douglas debators to access theory arguments.  This also raises awareness about how far LD debators can go in presenting evidence.  Besides this, we are raising awareness about the short-comings of American law enforcement.  Without education there would be no reason to fund debate, and the activity would fall apart.
5.    Solves for Affirmative time-skew – Because pictures are worth a thousand words, and the fact 1AR forces affirmative debators to answer limitless and often unwaranted arguments with a required lengthy response, make clean extensions, do impact analysis, and attack the negative offense all in four minutes, our interpretation of justified allows us to simply show you the justification opposed to explaining it.  This alleviates the strain on the affirmative in defending it in the 1AR.
6.    Entertainment – This is a prerequisite to debate as an activity.  While educational quality is definitely important (besides the fact that we introduce unique education into the round), no one would participate in debate if they didn’t find it fun or interesting.  This quality hinges upon the ability to be creative in-round.  When humorous or interesting interpretations of the resolution are introduced, they should be preferred because they increase entertainment.  Defaulting to a dry, stock interpretation results in a boring cookie-cutter activity that no one cares about.  When people cease to participate in the activity, it loses funding and the activity as a whole can dissolve.
7.    Innovation – This allows debate to evolve.  In the 1950s policy debate started as a simple discussion groups about politics and philosophy.  Now it has evolved into an activity meant to kritik and analyze various forms debate and argumentation that would have otherwise been ignored.  Maybe two years from now, people will be able to construct pictoral cases or present video footage to better illustrate points.
8.    Develops analytics – Creative arguments force debators to develop their own argumentations in the round instead of regurgitating information obtained from coaches and senior debators.  This forces people to do their own critical thought instead of relying on appeals to authority and unoriginal ideas.  It forces debators to think on their feet.
9.    Solves for Minority Oppression – There is no reason to prefer defining “justified” within the realm of justice.  NFL has never framed a resolution with the word “justified” before now.  Furthermore, all thoughts and interpretations are equally valid.  Since I am the only person advocating this interpretation, I represent the minority.  My interpretation has been overlooked because of minority oppression.  Minority oppression and isolation has led to attrocities such as genocide, internment camps, and slavery.
10.    Real world – Debate is just a game.  If the judge were to sign the ballot in negation of the resolution, none of the impacts listed in their case are actually going to happen.  The judge’s signature is not the launch sequence to nuclear warheads or the fire in a Nazi crematoreum.  All of my reasons for preference result in real world impacts.  When the ballot is signed in affirmation of the resolution today, real things occur as a result of the round.
Because I have proved that the government has failed to enforce the law and vigilantism is justified, I have proved that the resolution is a true statement.  At the point that we accept my interpretation, we should always vote affirmative for the preferential reasons I have provided because they increase the net benefit to the debate community.