Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Thank you for responding to this argument. "Your value criterion is Nietzsche. It is not a Nietzschean theory or specific qualifier. I will assume that you are using Nietzsche the person as your criterion for the remainder of the debate if you do not clarify further." Nope i am using his theory as my value criterion. Rebuttal: "Would the world really be a bad place to live in if we prevented Arabic men from throwing battery acid in the face of little girls trying to read? Would it be a bad place if we gave medical treatment to people suffering of AIDS and Malaria? Of course not. The world would be a better place if we minimized suffering and maximized morality and human compassion. The world would be a more moral place and a reduction in the amount of suffering would make life more bearable for billions of people. Without careless suffering, there would not be a decrease in the will to power. People will seek power, they will seek to better themselves, and the incentive to work hard still exists if individuals meet their fellow man's basic needs. Notice the debate is not about the efficacy of such a plan or the practicality of it, but rather the principles and values in the resolution. It's a debate about whether or not individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." My opponents first question is that of importance. never did i say that helping people in need was bad, i am simply saying that it denies them suffering that would make them stronger as a person. Know if you see a man trying to pure acid on a child face, would you help her? ofcourse! Are you obligated to help her? No would be the answer. The fact is that whether you help this child or not, is completly up to you, however not helping her, could have made her stronger. It would have allowed her to live her life with the scars and learn that peoples insults are notting but words. Ones again, it would be good to help this child, but helping her is not your moral obligation as it might put you as an individual,m in danger. "th world would be a better place if we minimized suffering and maximized morality and human compassion. The world would be a more moral place and a reduction in the amount of suffering would make life more bearable for billions of people." This might be true, but the fact is that `helping someone else is just human comnpassion, there is absolutely no obligation telling us that we should help this person, that we should help the world. We help someone becuase we see it in our best interest to help this person. This statement only says to me that my opponent is heling someone becuase of an incentive. If you help someone in this scenerio not becuase you are morraly obligated to, but becuase you wish to leave upon this utopia described by my opponent. "I hope my opponent is familiar with institutions called, "hospitals." They provide life saving medical treatment to people in need. The analogy I would use for these institutions is that of a digger digging through rock with his bare hands. If the digger can dig through the giant boulder with only his hands, fine. He may die from loss of blood from his hands, exhaustion, or may die of old age before he accomplishes his goal. Now, picture a digger with 21st century, state-of-the-art excavation equipment. The digger in the latter case digs through the large boulder with much ease and within a few days. If there is a place where people can go to decrease their suffering, get healed much faster, and taken care of in an efficient, moral way, then that is what should be done. There is a reason we have hospitals, homeless shelters, food stamps, charities, because allowing people to suffer when help can amply be given is immoral, unethical, and inane" Lets look at this paragraph carefully? Is this really moral obligation? Answer, NO. The fact is that this institution that my opponent speaks of is not doing or caring for these people due to some moral obligation, but becuase for an incentive. If they help these people, they don't get shut down. If they don't get shut down, they get money. Is this really a moral obligation? The fact is that we are not morally obligated to do something for another beign, we simply do it becuase we have another drive another incentive that will better our lives. On to my original statement..."The only way to overcome suffering is by embracing it." Notice that I used the word overcome instead of solve. The fact is that in an effort to overcome our suffering, we must embrace the fact that we are suffering. In doing do, we can then look for the most appropriate way to solve this problem. You cannot solve your problems if you can't embrace the fact that you do have problems. "This is a very specific example of one person overcoming suffering, and should not be applied to a greater populus based on its success. The only form of morality that can be applied objectively and universally is Universal Morality that exists and is moral regardless of what a particular individual feels at a particular time..." My opponent is absolutely correct, however, I gave the example not to set a basis in which one can overcome their sufferings, but to state that if he was able to overcome his suffering, then every one can. He attacks my statement "If we assist those in need[,] then they will not be able to embrace their suffering." by stating that "Embracing suffering is the bad part of it. Many people do embrace their suffering and the implication of it are death, malnutrition, and injury. This is highly illogical, to embrace your suffering is to recognize that you do have a problem or that you are suffering. If we help someone before they achieve this step, then you are denying them the chance of knowing that they did have a problem. Due to space limitation, I cannot continue. Thank you and I hope to recieve your argument soon.