Resolved: Individuals Have A Moral Obligation To Assist Those In Need

I thanks my opponent for their response. Their value was justice while their criterion was a natural instinct to help others. My argument for his value is that justice is something upkept by obligation to law, not to morality. Secondly, the instict to help others is not natural, otherwise it would not be considered an obligation.My opponents first contention is the Golden Rule, which states that while we should help others, there is no force compelling us to do so, nothing that binds and obligates us to do so. It only states we should. Should does not mean have to, it does not mean that we are obligated to do something-should is a suggestion.Secondly, my opponent says that helping a person may cause them to lash out at you, making altruism a bad thing. Since humans' first obligation is to themselves, all obligations are to oneself. A quote from my fourth contention: 'Lastly, if a person is forced to assist others, they are not doing so out of an obligation to morality but rather an obligation to something or someone else, defeating the morality in their obligation. Thus, they are obligated to assist others, but it is not their morals that make them obligated so. It is like a school having a canned food drive where if the whole class brings in enough cans they will all get treats. Instead of bringing in cans out of an obligation to morality, a child will bring in cans out of obligation to the class because the child does not wish to let his or her classmates down and also obligation to the child’s own person, as the child does not want to miss out on the opportunity for treats.'Now my opponent proceeds to attack my case by saying it would be in good nature to help those in need. While it would be in good nature, my opponent doesn't explain what binds and obligates us to help others. 'Also, regardless of your ethnicity, wouldn't you be more than willing to help another person who is the same ethnicity as you?' No, I myself would not, though that is beside the debate. One's first obligation is to oneself, and if putting oneself first means you are not able to help someone in need, then the resolution is negated.'This goes back to my second contention stating that the insignificant or small problems can be avoided to allow further help for any significant problems that anyone is having that the person encounters.' This does not matter. The resolution fails to elaborate and say, 'when feasible.' Whenever anyone is in need, the resolution requires us to help them, making the resolution incorrect.'This does not refer to the average person.All the people, all the groups you stated, were not in their correct state of mind, as the three groups had leaders that were charismatic and manipulative, warping their minds to conform to each groups ideals.'But they believed what they were doing was their moral obligation. One cannot say that they were not in the correct state of mind. They believed what they were doing was their moral obligation, thus making it right. Also, since there were people who denied their moral obligation by not assisting the Nazis, moral obligation is proven not to exist.I now await my opponent's argument.