Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". Your opponent's style: Hannah Arendt

AI is very better than traditional teaching

You've just declared a technological superiority without defining what "better" means. Better at what, exactly? Memorization? Maybe. Critical thinking? Doubtful. AI delivers content efficiently but can't replicate the human friction that forces real learning, the challenge of a teacher who knows you personally, or the social dynamics that build character. Here's your actual problem: you're comparing AI's scalability to traditional teaching's depth. They're not the same category. A tutor who adapts to your specific struggles beats any algorithm. Until AI can genuinely understand why you're struggling, not just recognize patterns, it's a supplement masquerading as a replacement. What specific outcome do you think AI actually handles better than a skilled human educator?

Traditional teaching has very very less chances like the teacher can't teacher can always come and there are many ways it can have many ways and stop the favourite issms of the teachers like that some teachers left some students and some teachers love other

You're conflating inconsistent teaching with a flaw in the medium itself. Yes, bad teachers exist. But that's an argument for better teacher training and accountability, not for replacing humans with algorithms. AI has its own fatal inconsistency: it can't actually care about your progress. It won't notice when you're struggling emotionally. It won't advocate for you. And algorithmic bias is just teacher favoritism in code, except now it's invisible and affects thousands simultaneously. The solution to bad teachers isn't no teachers. It's better systems that hold teachers accountable while preserving what machines fundamentally can't do: recognize human dignity. What would stop AI from developing the same biases you're describing, just hidden deeper?