Resolved: that governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.

I. Interpretation. A. Governments. Sub-Point 1:I would like to clarify that when we looks at the phrase, ". .. that governments have a moral obligation. .. " We are talking about all governments. For clarity, I will provide an example. If a person said, "I love debaters. " then that person doesn't mean some or a specific few, that person is talking about all debaters. Sub-Point 2:My opponent brought up the argument that it is immoral to say that needy nations are morally obligated to assist other nations, at their citizens' expense. However, this argument relies on the false premise that assistance requires resources. Let's look at the definition of 'assistance', it is, "The activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need. " A need is, "Anything that is necessary but lacking. " Thus, we see that to assist is to Contribute towards the fulfillment of anything that is necessary, but lacking. Now, how is this relevant? This is relevant, because a government with little resources can still assist without hurting its people. An example of assistance, that does not consume resources, but aligns with the definition is Diplomatic Assistance. Governments can assist and fulfill certain needs through peace talks, sending diplomats, and persuading nations. This means that even governments like Haiti's can assist other nations in need. B. Resolutional AnalysisMy opponent brought up the argument that when you put the definitions into the resolution, they are unintelligible. However, when we really look at this, it isn't the case. For example, let's put all the definitions into the resolution, not just one segment. Resolved: That the governing body of people of a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language,inhabiting a particular country or territory, have an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong to contribute towards the fulfillment of anything that is necessary but lacking, in other large aggregates of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory that lack something necessary. However, for all simplicity we will be arguing the simple resolution stated, "Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. "II. Contention Arguments. A. Contention I. My opponent triied to argue that human rights don't exist and that not all humans have rights, just like gnats don't have rghts. However, he has shown no logical backing for this point. Rather, the existence of human rights' value and human rights itself is self-evident. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” This shows that the human rights’ inherent value is self-evident and obvious. Without the essential rights of life, liberty, and property, we are left dead, enslaved, and homeless. Finally, my opponent has not offered an alternate definition of human rights(The fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property to which all humans are entitled. ), thus the definition stands in this debate. B. Contention III. My opponent's argument against my third contention simply requires a point of clarification. In my third contention, I stated that my criterion of governmental assistance protects human rights, not that it creates them. Every human has rights, but they can be violated. The main point in my third contention was that governmental assistance protects human rights. He has not refuted that point. III. Values. Now that I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments I will now go over my value. My value/highest goal in this debate is that of Universal Human Rights. He has not shown why my value isn't the highest goal in today's debate thus it stands. My opponent may agree with my value, but still needs to negate the resolution/moral obligation. IV. Contention II. My opponent has dropped my second contention. My second contention was the basis for why the moral obligation to assist other nations in need exists. Since, my opponent has not addressed it, it is dropped, thus stands in this debate. Since, the contention stands, I have successfully proved that governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. I would like to remind the audience that we are in rebuttals, thus no new arguments may be made, we may only refute the presented arguments from now on. This means that my opponent may not address any dropped arguments or contentions, thus they stand. V. Moral Obligation. My opponent has shown no reason why governments do not have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. VI. Definitions. I would like to remind the audience that all definitions that my oppent does not address, stand in this debate. VII. Recap. Finally, I would like to reiterate the three key points of my case.1. Universal Human Rights is the highest value in today’s debate.2. Governmental Assistance leads to Universal Human Rights.3. Since a citizen’s human rights are so valuable and universal, non-citizen’s rights should not be excluded. Therefore, governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to remind everyone again that we are in rebuttals. In rebuttals, as stated in the beginning of the debate, you may not bring up new arguments. You may only refute existing arguments and clarify.