Looking for a Challenge.

So without further ado, let's get to the bulk of this round: === INTRODUCTION === Before getting into specific rebuttals and re-affirmations, I wish to make clear one point that applies across the board: My case is not about prescribing specific charities to which we should be expected to give. As such, the various arguments that my opponent provides about the demerits of certain charitable organisations do not quite hit the target that I am providing. To quote the key part of my moral case in the last round: "Perhaps the closest you can get to a good [i. e. morally relevant] difference [between the obligation of Steve to save the child and the obligation to donate to charity] is the difficulty sometimes in knowing to which charity you should donate your money. But this would only lead to people needing to spend some time researching the different charities to determine which is best at helping those in need; it doesn't mean that we should shirk our duty to donate at all. " (italics added in emphasis. ) This point sets aside the third and fourth substantives that my opponent put forward - concerns about specific charities do not and should not over-ride a general moral obligation to donate to charitable organisations. They should merely inform a sense of investigation about the efficacy of charities before donating to them. === RE-AFFIRMATION OF MY CASE === It is unfortunate that my opponent didn't have the space with which to rebut the key section of my points about morality, given its centrality to my case. I look forward to his rebuttal on it in his next round. That besides, he did rebut the parts to my first argument, on the question of donating a "significant amount" of money, etc. To this end, I would like to re-iterate from my last round that this applies not only to the prospect of development aid - which my opponent rightly states is currently (and unfortunately) not given to enough at the moment - but also to humanitarian aid. .. for example, by helping more famine-stricken children or providing more vaccines to innoculate more people against diseases. I accept my opponent's further point on this regarding governments, but only insofar as governments would have to allow charities into their country to provide aid (unless we go as far as invade on humanitarian grounds). But this need not apply to my opponent's specific point about governments supposedly being able to "confiscate" money and supplies. This is a massive problem with a lot of current aid - and is an excellent reason not to donate to specific charities that allow such things - but need not be the case, if the NGOs in question take the money themselves and directly translate it into aid and supplies on the ground. There is no reason to suppose that all such charitable enterprises in foreign countries are doomed to failure, such as to over-ride the moral obligation that I argue exists to donate to charity. === REBUTTAL AGAINST MY OPPONENT'S SUBSTANTIVES === Apart from the two substantives dealt with the introduction to this round, I shall deal with my opponent's remaining two substantives in turn. The first question he raises is about the problem with giving aid directly to people, who may then misuse the funds. This is not relevant to the question of whether we should be obliged to give to charities - defined in my last round, as accepted by my opponent, as not-for-profit organisations. The second issue he raises does not lead, either, to the conclusion that we should not give a significant proportion of our income to charity, only that we should be careful and not reckless about how much we actually give. Note that in my clarificatory definition provided in the very first round, I made it clear both that the specific amount to be donated would naturally change between individuals, and that it should not be so much that the giver becomes impoverished (or "bankrupt", as my opponent phrased it). Look to the example of Toby Ord, who recently became modestly famous in the UK for his commitment and advocacy towards donating a proportion of his income to charity. (. http://www.bbc.co.uk...) He is giving away a third of his income - by anyone's definition, a significant amount - and yet still has £18,000 a year to use. Given that he has a wife earning a similar amount after charity-donation, combined there is certainly no question that they will run into financial difficulties anytime soon. Even if we add in dependents - elderly parents and/or children - that would only mean that they should reduce the amount they give to charity, perhaps to "only" a quarter of their income. Still significant, yet not by any means impoverishing or bankrupting them. Even taking the student example that my opponent mentioned, their tight financial situation only means that they should be careful not to waste money. Do they really need that extra DVD or Xbox game? Do they really need to buy every textbook on their list, especially when their university's libraries will have most (if not all) of them in stock anyway? Toby Ord's website on the issue has a calculator - . http://www.givingwhatwecan.org... - designed to prove how lots of people often don't realise just how much they earn relative to those in dire suffering elsewhere. For most people, a significant proportion of their income is disposable, to the extent that they don't need it in order to live a very good life - even to the standards of their friends and family. When we both know, and can do something, about famine and poverty in the world, and instead waste money on truly frivolous ends, that is morally inexcusable. I await my opponent's response :)