Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Thank you for the lesson.Indeed, I do not know the difference between induction and deduction! Myself, I find generalizations and stereotypes quite pracitcal in the decision-making process. I am sure you beg to differ?YOU SAID: First: this entire section of my opponent's rebuttal literally makes zero sense.Second: there's no actual relevance to the debate at hand. If there is one it's so absolutely muddled that the LINK to the debate is non-sensical.Essentially, please opponent, clarify on what the literal f*ck you're trying to say from "#4) The philosophy of inaction" to "the betterment of the nation as a whole."Ok ok. Calm down. Now I will try to address the "grevious harm" that I have seem to have caused you to stir up such a commotion.I will try to keep this short. I dont even want to try to repeat first round arguments as you have done so I will So I will stick to the summary from Round 2. Sure, inductive reasoning is false. But so is deductive reasoning. The point Wittgenstein is saying is that we have to trust that the scope of knowledge is limited. Hence, even if as you say we cannot use inductive reasoning to say we should not be altruistic in helping others, but morally this is not rational to do so. Your point: Inductive is false. So we cannot trust our reasoning. Counter-argument: Since we cannot logically find our way out of epistemological questions, I say we must search for truth, sans-salvation, in our well-grounded traditions, morals and religion. I also take offence at your opening statement: With Wittgenstein defended, you can extend out the second contention of Wittgenstein saying that inductive reasoning is false. This makes the statement of the resolution impossible to actually prove true, and therefore it's an instant negative vote. In what highminded authoirty would you argue a statement that you knew from the outset to be false ~ this is bordering on the absurd. Your last point. You accuse my rebuttal of not being in`SYNC. My dear fellow, it is you who has lost your sight, and let your ethics blind you? Let me advise you, that in any democratic enterprise of such, and such, glorious nation building we are bound by laws and decrees. You would like to assume that yes we are not obligated towards our duties. However, for the vast majority of the nation this is not true. You choose to live your life in moral relativity, or what you call Subjectivity. But you could not afford this relaxed subjectivity had it not been for space for movement, thinking and free speech. It is the foundation of law that allows you to keep you high-minded morals to yourself. When you say such things as INSTANT NEGATIVE VOTE you show that you do not actually believe in the argument's premise, or conclusion. Like in all obligations it is not the results, no it is most definitely your intentions that shine. In all matters, we must always protect the weak or one day we too shall fall prey to our own conformity - Kant said that (Or maybe he didn't).Nonetheless, our obligation (aka, the burden of proof !), is thus only a means to keep democracy from decaying. By protecting the hungry and the destitute we insure our own shared future. This is the basis of any social contract .. I'm quite sure somebody famous somewhere high-high-up said that??