Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

I apolgize once again but it was a mistake in setting up with the debate. The new order is; 1. Round one Introductions 2. Round one Introductions 3.Round 2 Affirmative Constructive 4. Round 2 Negative Constructive 5.Round 3 Affirmative Rebuttal 6.Round 3 Negative rebuttal 7.Round 4 Affirmative second rebuttal 8.Round 4 Neg Final Focus Thank you for accepting this debate and Good luck! We have all seen the begger on the street, the man with the stopped car or the woman who has tripped and fallen. The resolution asks us whether or not we have an obligation to help said person in need. I am in strong affirmation of this resolution. I will attempt to prove that we do genuninely have a obligation to assist those in need. Definitions(all from Oxford) obligation:an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment assist:an act of helping individual:a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family Now that I have set the definitions I am open to refutation of the definitions. If I may give my interpretation of the resolution for the sheer sake of clearity, the resolution asks us whether or not we have a moral obligition to assist those in need. The resolution concerns itself primarily with the value of duty. Therefore my value criteron will be morality. Also it should be mentioned that I will be stating three contentions: one assisting someone is always morally right, two we expect people to do morally right actions, and three if the former are true then it is a catorgorial imperative and a moral obligation that is confirmed by Kant no less. My first contention is very simple. It states that assisting someone is always the morally right action. We must consider one of the deeper complexites of helping someone, what are we doing when we assist someone? We are allieving suffering. If we ask ourselves if allieving someones suffering is morally right we find it is. In fact the opposite which is allowing suffering is always morally reprehensible. The Affirmative challanges the Negative to show us the way one can help someone without allieving suffering. If they cannot then the Aff. wins this contention and it stands. My second contention is about the moral expectations of a individuals. In this we must disregard morally neuter actions which are neither required nor morally reprehensible. We must consider what we require of other people and what is required of us. Generally speaking we expect people to act morally such is mentioned extensively(even though relating to government instead) in Hobbes work about the Social Contracts. Also it should be mentioned most philosophers would agree with the statement " We are expected to assist those in need but for further evidence lets consider how we treat our kids. What is it we tell our kids? Play 'nice' or be nice. What are we telling them? We are telling them to act morally, now we must ask ourselves (being a moral action as defined in the previous argument) is not assisting someone being 'nice' or acting morally for that matter? It is not and further more in violation of the social contract and morally reprehesible since you are allowing suffering making this a morally reprehesible action. My last contention states that if the former contentions are true we have moral obligation based on Kants theory and general moral thinking. One it passes the principle of universality or it can be applied to every single person without hurting people. Second we expected of it and expect it of other people so it passes the second test and the last test is that it is a morally right action which is established in the third argument. Conclusion In conclusion there can be no other vote than the affirmative today.