Resolved: that governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.

As birthdayfan has reminded me, we are now in the rebuttals portion of the debate. That being the case, it is now my duty to refute and clarify. OverviewIn the first round, I presented two possible interpretations of the word "governments." In his last note, birthdayfan chose one of them: governments = all governments. I think birthdayfan should lose the debate on this point, and I will explain this in detail. Furthermore, I will defend my objection that birthdayfan's interpretation of the resolution is incoherent. And finally, I will defend my objections to birthdayfan's contentions. I will proceed with a line-by-line analysis of birthdayfan's last remarks.I. InterpretationA. "Governments"Sub-Point 1: I am happy to accept birthdayfan's interpretation of "governments" referring to all governments.Sub-Point 2: In my first round remarks, I noted that this interpretation of "governments" is problematic for birthdayfan, because it requires needy nations to give to other needy nations. Birthdayfan responds by arguing that my argument has some sort of underlying assumption about resources. But even though I used resources in my example last round, my argument still stands--requiring anything of needy nations is immoral! To clarify my position, here's another example: Suppose that a hurricane hits nation A, and, on the same day, an earthquake ravages nation B. Under birthdayfan's interpretation of "governments," nation A would have a moral obligation to assist nation B--and vice versa. But really, we should not expect nation A to have any obligation--moral, or otherwise--to assist nation B. Morally speaking, A's only obligation in this scenario is to it's own people. Any assistance A gives to B would be supererrogatory--it would go beyond the call of moral duty.To be clear, it is not my position that other nations might have a moral obligation to nations A and B. Suppose there is a nation C that stayed clear of any natural disasters. Maybe C has a moral obligation to A and B. However, it is ridiculous to expect anything of nations A and B in a time of such peril. Birthdayfan tries to skirt the issue by noting that a nation like Haiti can assist other nations in many different ways. But suppose there is a country that doesn't need anything but resources. Do we expect Haiti to provide them then? Under birthdayfan's interpretation of "governments" we would still expect something from Haiti. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there were a nation whose only need was food for one person. The only way to assist this country is to provide food to the one person. Under birthdayfan's interpretation, Haiti would be obligated to provide food to this country whether Haiti had any food or not. You can now see how ridiculous it would be to expect this from Haiti. Sometimes diplomacy and persuasion aren't going to be an option.In other words, sometimes a need can only be fulfilled by very specific action--like providing a resource. If that action cannot be taken by a particular country because it lacks a resource, it would be absurd to say that it has a moral obligation to assist another country by providing that resource. Yet this is what birthdayfan argues.With that said, I believe I clearly win on this point alone: it is not the case that all governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. Birthdayfan would have been wise to interpret "governments" to refer to some governments rather than all governments. However, he hasn't. I believe I have proven the absurdity of the proposition that all governments have a moral obligation to assist others in need. That said, I ask that you vote for me.B. Resolutional Analysis - Unintelligibility / IncoherenceI applaud birthdayfan for substituting all of his definitions into the resolution. This is an important exercise that I believe a lot of debaters sometimes overlook. But notice that birthdayfan has cleverly inserted words like "fulfillment" into his new version of the resolution. That word is NOWHERE in his definitions. Also notice that birthday fan inserted his definition of the singular "government" into his new version of the resolution. That's not even the word in the original resolution! This point may come off as petty, but it is my position that the pro in this debate has an obligation to present an intelligible interpretation of the resolution to win this round. Otherwise, the resolution makes no sense! Birthdayfan has been careless with his definitions, and he should not be rewarded.II. Contention DebateA. Contention IBirthdayfan claims that I have no logical backing to my point that gnats don't have universal rights. This is not true. I was pointing out that Birthdayfan's logic was flawed. Here is my interpretation of Birthdayfan's logic on this contention:1. "Human Rights" applies to all humans. (Definition)2. Therefore, human rights exist and are universal. (Assertion of existence)This same logic can be applied to gnats.1. "Gnat Rights" applies to all gnats. (Definition)2. Therefore, gnat rights exist and are universal. (Assertion of existence)You as a voter can see how problematic this logic is. Birthdayfan claims that I do not provide another definition for "Human Rights," but this point does not matter. Unfortunately for birthdayfan, definitions do not imply existence. I can provide a definition for "unicorn," but that does not mean that unicorns exist. Similarly, one can provide a definition of "Human Rights," and that doesn't mean human rights exist.B. Contention IIIOn this point, birthdayfan has clarified his position. He means to say that governmental assistance protects human rights, not that it creates them. Great.Birthdayfan says, "Every human has rights, but they can be violated."But cross-apply my analysis from Interpretation Sub-Point 2. Suppose in nation C that one person is in need of food. And suppose that nation A has just been hit by a hurricane and has no food. Has nation A violated the person in nation C's human rights? Of course not. Yet birthdayfan says nation A has a moral obligation to help nation C, even though it cannot.Nobody has a moral obligation to do something he can't do.III. ValuesBirthdayfan claims that I haven't refuted his goal of Universal Human rights. However, I actually have. That is the entire point of the Contention I debate. IV. Contention IIYeah, I'll concede Contention II. But I don't need to win it.V. Moral ObligationBirthdayfan: "My opponent has shown no reason why governments do not have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need."False. See Interpretation Sub-Point 2 for an example.VI. DefinitionsBirthdayfan: "I would like to remind the audience that all definitions that my oppent does not address, stand in this debate."I won't dispute this point. However, I think the issues that I've pointed out with a few of the definitions are damning enough.ConclusionVoters, I should win this debate on Interpretation Sub-Point 2 alone. Please refer back to this point when evaluating the round. Again, it is absurd to expect assistance from nations who are unable to provide assistance. Even if nations can provide diplomacy and persuasion, sometimes that is not enough to actually assist. So we should not expect anything from those nations. We must only expect assistance from those who are able to provide it.If the voter is unpersuaded by this argument, I would ask he or she to look to the resolutional analysis and the contention debate. Birthdayfan unfortunately made a mistake of interpreting "governments" to refer to all governments. Universal Human Rights may be a noble goal--I'll concede that much. But we cannot expect all governments to be morally obligated in some situations. Therefore, it is not the case that all governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.