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

I. InterpretationA. GovernmentsSub-Point 1Opponent Agreed.Sub-Point 2My opponent stated that a needy nation's government doesn't have any moral obligations, except to its own people. He then went on to refute the idea of Diplomatic assistance, saying that some nations only need food, water, and resources of the like. However, he has shown no logically backing for this point, except for that diplomatic assistance doesn't always work. Thus, if I can prove that diplomatic assistance does work, this point is invalidated. Although, in some cases diplomatic assistance may not directly work, it can work in action with other forms of assistance. For example, if Haiti and Honduras are needy, America assists Haiti, but can't assist Honduras due to diplomatic strife or lack of peace, then Haiti can assist Honduras with diplomatic assistance. Once Haiti has finished assisting Honduras diplomatically, the diplomatic strife will be eliminated, peace restored, and America can assist Honduras with humanitarian assistance. All of this fulfilled a need, abides by the definition of assistance, and does not consume any resources, thus does not harm its citizens. Resolutional Analysis1. Assistance: The activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need.|Clearly, fulfillment is in the definition.2. The substituted version is not perfect, that's why I said we should debate the simplified version; the one that started the debate. We could spend 100 rounds nit picking at my poor grammar, however, that does nothing to further this debate, it doesn't warrant a vote for either side, and distracts from the main issue.II. ContentionsA. Contention II would like to clarify that my definition argument on "Human Rights" was for clarity. Also, I would like to remind the voters that he has dropped the argument that human rights are self-evident. The existence of human rights' value and human rights itself is self-evident. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” This shows that the human rights’ inherent value is self-evident and obvious. Without the essential rights of life, liberty, and property, we are left dead, enslaved, and homeless.B. Contention IIIThis is the same point as in Point I. INterpretation, Sub-Point 2. However, he is missing the point of this contention. Human RIghts can be directly violated, either by dictators, other people, etc. My point was that Governmental Assistance leads to the protection of human rights universally.III. ValuesI would like to clarify that the moral obligation, contentions, values, and criterions are completely separate entities, but to elaborate extensively on this wouldn't do much to further the debate.IV. Contention IIMy opponent agreed with this point, however, this is the entire reason for the moral obligation. My point here was that protecting citizens' rights, but not non-citizens' rights is hypocritical. If citizens’ human rights are so valuable why are non-citizens’ human rights less valuable? Since, every human has the same rights and they are universal, we cannot say that one person’s human rights are less valuable than another person’s human rights.It was in ths=is point that I also reiterated and confirmed that human rights are universal.V. Moral ObligationThis will be decided by the presented arguments.VI. DefintionsI have refuted all challenged definitions, thus, they all stand.ConclusionI strongly urge the voters to evaluate my refutation of Interpretation, Sub-Point 2 and to consider that my opponent agrees with Contention 2 of my case, thus it stands.It is for these reasons that I stand Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------As per the rules established in round 1, this is the last speech and the final round is simply for the negative to thank for the debate. As do I thank the negative for the great debate!