Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

As my opponent's last round was, at best, highly scattered and disorganized, I'll just go through it line-by-line and explain how he's still wrong. "Assisting those in need ought to be valued and should be done as only helping others is the best wa to show a indiiuals morality and kindheartednes. "How does it make us morally obligated? Wouldn't this just be a self-regarding end, to show others that we are kind? This bites directly into my case and proves how we AREN'T obligated to do anything. "I believe trying to help someone as moral obligation is far more superior. .. "This only begs the question of does this obligation exist, which is exactly what my case refutes. If the obligation doesn't exist, then we can never be morally obligated to do something. "If we left our Health on self interest of individual just imagine what would happen. "Extra-topical. All my case says is that we are not obligated to do anything via egoism being true. "As tax is compulsory, Australia indirectly has mide its citizens to be obliged[sic] to assist those in need. "False. This only proves egoism further. Paying the taxes is mandatory by law. It's the government's choice, and in their self-interest, to use that tax money to help the poor out. They are, in no way, shape, or form, obligated to use that tax money to assist people. "It is true that majority of u help others. .. must ought to happen like helping those in need. "What is the point of this entire paragraph? I've literally read and re-read this paragraph five times trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and it literally makes absolutely no sense. It literally proves nothing. Let's go down through his checklist and see why he's failing to meet his own reasons.1. I have provided a moral, more beneficial to human framework which is far superior, just and moral for the society of today. False on multiple levels.1. You have not provided any sort of moral reasoning. I'm the only one providing some sort of ethical justification through egoism. You have nothing to back up your claims as to why your case promotes moral action.2. Your framework cannot be more beneficial because it doesn't exist. You literally have no framework. Unless you wanna count definitions as a framework, then even still it's not proving or arguing anything.2. I have affirmed the resolution and my arguments have proved my case. False. You have only showed that we should assist people in need and that people are assisting those in need. But none of this proves that we as individuals have a MORAL OBLIGATION to assist those in need. You never touch this. Of course, this is all presupposing your case stands. You never answered a single response I had against your case. You didn't even bring up your case this last round. In so far as you dropped it, you concede all my responses to it, and concede that your case is false. This only leaves my case standing. Here we can auto-negate.3. I hope I have also proved that relying an opponent is a major risk which no person or country will take unles they or he or she are mad or a tyrant.1. Where have you proved this?2. This presupposes that this even matters in the debate, which is false. I think that touches on everything. So let's recap the debate, since this is the last round, and explain why he's (still) losing and why I'm (still) winning. 1. His case doesn't actually affirm the resolution. He never adresses if humans have a moral obligation to assist people in need. All he says is that it's good to help people, and people do help people, so somehow we have an obligation to assist people. This is entirely unwarranted and flat-out false. Thus, he literally cannot win, even if you buy the 'responses' he put against my case.2. He drops all of the arguments I made against his case. So even if you extend his case across the flow for him, it's a) refuted and dropped and b) turned as a reason to negate instead of affirm. 3. He's not providing any sort of weighing mechanism with which to weigh the round under, as necessary for any LD debate, regardless of whether it's a Value/Criterion or a burden system of some sort. I'm the only one providing this through my value and criterion, so you can prefer my case and negate here.4. I'm the only one with any sort of framework that even discusses ethics. You prefer my case here.5. I've sufficiently defended my case. You can extend it across the flow and negate here. With that.