Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

There are a few debate problems I have with my opponents case that could use some clarification:1. 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.2. By not having a core value you implicitly are greatly disadvantaged as this is a value debate. I will assume that your core value is "will to power. "I will begin by deconstructing my opponents case and move on to uphold my own. DeconstructionMy opponent's value is will to power which I will immediately call not only irrelevant for a debate about morality and obligation, but a standard for a case that is essentially distracting from the real issues; thus, it is a red herring. My opponent's value criterion is Nietzsche. Not a theory of his, not a principle he created, but Nietzsche. This can only be interpreted to mean the man himself. If this is so, that means the Con side of this debate is wrapped around the life of a single person. This is using a very specific example for a universal law. There is a great discrepancy there that puts all humans at a disadvantage. In my opponents first contention he states that "to assist people in need is to deny them of the suffering that will make them stronger. " 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. In my opponents second contention he states that, "The only way to overcome suffering is by embracing it. " I hope the readers of the debate can already discern how ludicruous this proposition is. I have to address it, because this is a debate. 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. Think of how ridiculous this concept is in historical context. Imagine telling millions of people starving in The Irish Potato famine that they should embrace the suffering they were enduring instead of coming to America because coming to America to have adequate nutrition necessary for survival would not be embracing the suffering. Or, imagine telling US troops that were in the process of liberating concentration camps to cease the immoral mass killings of Jews, Polaks, and Gypsies, because that would not be allowing those oppressed peoples to embrace their suffering. This immoral concept is entirely baseless and should not be regarded as a serious thought. Later in the contention he gives a long example of how Nietzsche wrestled with his suffering, and then turned out to be the master of his fate because of it. 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; thus, propaganda in Nazi Germany for example would only be altering the subjective descriptive morality of a particular time while normative morality exists and is moral despite this. He later states that "If we assist those in need[,] then they will not be able to embrace their suffering. Again, this is not a bad thing. Embracing suffering is the bad part of it. Many people do embrace their suffering and the implication of it are death, malnutrition, and injury. I am not refuting that a few people may acheive success from embracing their particular suffering (not a lack of food, water, or terminal illness). However, since we are morally obligated to help these people, we should. It's also interesting to notice that of the people who do acquire great power, they all have their needs met. UpholdThe best perspective to view this debate through is the Affirmative (Pro) side's Universal Morality that requires and obligates us to assist people in need to ensure morality is acheived. When we callously ignore people's suffering because their needs are not met, our morality is hindered and injustice, unethical actions occur as implications. We can't be moral by ignoring people in need. Thank you.