Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

I hope to point out the flaws in it with this speech, as well as present my case in the google document below. . https://docs.google.com... # With that being done, let's talk about my opponent's case. Starting with his framework, I'm going to outweigh and come first. Ontology questions the assumptions moral theories such as utilitarianism takes as truth, and thus functions on a higher level. But then secondly, my contention level arguments link into his framework and fulfill it better than he does because when we assist people in need, we alieviate their suffering and ruin the value of life. Thus, by not assisting them and allowing the suffering of the world to flow naturally, we allow life to continue to have meaning. Thus, I'm going to be better linking into my opponent's value. Then, for my opponent's contention one, I'd like to point out a very confusing flaw with my opponent's case. While his value-criterion is one of utilitarianism, in his contention one he advocates for Kant's categorical imperative, which is a deontic moral theory. This is a massive contradiction with my opponent's case, as utilitarianism supports the ends justifying the means, while deontology says the exact opposite, that the ends don't justify the means. As long as this contradiction exists, his contention one cannot link into his value-criteron, and thus doesn't link into his value. Also, he then advocates for Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, that has absolutely no link into morality since it is a theory of what makes an action JUST, not what makes an action MORAL. Justice and morality are two entirely seperate concepts, and he's trying to blend the two into being one. While these theories may work in principle, put in his case they contradict his framework. So because of his own folly, we can safely disregard contention one. For his contention two, I don't even have to respond to this one. The ability to assist is not what my case calls into question. The end results of assisting only makes things worse, thus turning my opponent's case on a resolutional level. For his contetion three, we can safely ignore this one. I'm not calling into question the objectivity of morality. But let's talk specifically about sub-point b of contention three for a moment. In this sub-point, he says that suffering is undesirable with no actual warrant to back it up besides a plea to your emotions. I flat-out disagree with this. My case provides specific evidence as to why suffering is necessary for us to find meaning in life. In so far as I'm the only one prividing actual evidence to back up my claims, I'm fully refuting his argument coming out of this sub-point. So the round breaks down pretty easily:1. His contention one contradicts his entire framework in multiple places.2. My framework precludes his framework, as ontology functions on a higher level than normative morality3. I'm sufficiently turning my opponent's case on a resolutional level, showing how by not assisting, we cause more harm than good by ruining the value of life by reducing the amount of suffering in the world. So, at this point, it's an easy neg vote.