Individuals Ought to Help Those in Need

Unfortunately, due to time constraints on my part, my argument here is going to have to be rather brief. Apologies to anyone, including Pro, who is disappointed by the lack of substance in what follows :(As agreed upon in comments, I will be attempting the rebut both Pro's Round 4 counter-rebuttals and his Round 5 counter-counter-rebuttals. PRO'S CASE 1. Duty to Rescue My rebuttal to this argument was that there IS a substantive difference between acts of commission and acts of omission. The Pro's main counter-rebuttal to this is that the example I provided is faulty, since the actions committed by person A and person B to not have the same results. That does not make any sense. The central idea of my rebuttal IS that acts of commission and acts of omission generally do not have the same results. So Pro is essentially objecting to my example because it debunks his argument. ..2. Levinasian EthicsMy rebuttal to this argument was that there is no more reason to believe that humans are innately empathetic than there is reason to believe that humans are innately selfish. Pro's counter-rebuttal does not address this. He merely talks about how sympathy is the glue that binds us together, and that our sense of sympathy calls on us to help people when they express pain. That counter completely misses the point of the rebuttal. I am not arguing that Levinasian ethical theory does not make sense; I am arguing that its basis (i. e. humans nature is empathetic) is a bare assertion with no evidence. 3. UtilitarianismMy rebuttal to this argument was that instances in which one can help someone in need at no cost to oneself are relatively rare and thus an argument solely concerned with those instances cannot be used to affirm the resolution. Pro's counter-rebuttal gives one example of a case in which helping someone in need would supposedly come at no cost to oneself (fetching a cookie tray for your mother). However, even in that example, it still requires time and energy to get up and fetch the cookie tray, so it technically there is still a cost to it. There are virtually no situations in which helping someone in need actually comes at no cost to oneself; there is always a cost of some sort, even if it's minimal. MY CASE1. Moral NihilismIn his counter-counter-rebuttals, Pro does nothing more than re-assert the claims I had already addressed. On topicality:My side of the resolution is not that helping those in need is morally undesirable, but simply that helping those in need in not morally desirable. If right and wrong do not exist, then moral desirability does not exist either. If moral desirability does not exist, then nothing is morally desirable, including helping those in need. Thus, Moral Nihilism does affirm that helping those in need is not morally desirable. On morality's existence:Pro simply re-asserts that morality's existence in the form of personal judgments and as a social construct disproves Nihilism. Again, I must assert that Nihilism's position on those things is not that they do not exist, but that they are meaningless and based on illusions. On burden of proof:I have already shown that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are just like any other electrochemical reaction in the universe. I have already shown that humans are arrangements of atoms just like every other object in the universe. Pro's job was to show that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are special. Pro's job was to show that the arrangements of atomsPro failed to complete this job, instead resorting to shifting burden of proof even though I'd already fulfilled mine. 2. Ethical EgoismNote:Pro does not even attempt to address one of the central factors in proving the truth of ethical egoism: the observation that since we can only ultimately feel our own pain and pleasure, actions which minimize our own pain and maximize our own pleasure are the most morally desirable. Thus, Pro has conceded that ethical egoism is true. On altruismPro misrepresents my argument in stating that "Con says that there are cases where helping others doesn't necessarily lead to any benefit to the egoist. "My argument from ethical egoism is not that helping people does not lead to ANY benefits, but that the costs of helping people almost always outweighs the benefits. Pro does not rebut this argument. On burden of proofPro ignores my clarification. I shall re-state it: I provided very common examples of helping people in need to demonstrate that there are a large number of situations in which the costs of helping people outweigh the benefits of helping them. This negates the resolution because, if there are a large number of situations in which it is unethical to help those in need, then it is not morally desirable to help those in need even "on balance".3. Reduction of SufferingThere is no need to address this. Pro's response consists of:-a personal anecdote (which can easily be rebutted with another one)-a debunked argument (i. .e. that there is no substantive difference between commission and omission)-a semantics game (i. e. turning allowing suffering into an act of commission by changing up the wordings)CONCLUSIONS-- Pro's "Duty to Rescue" case is refuted because there is generally a clear differentiation to be made between acts of commission and acts of omission, which is contrary to one of the argument's essential premises. --Pro's case from Levinasian Ethics is refuted because it is based on the baseless assertion that the core of human nature is empathetic, making the entire case logically unsound. --Pro's case from Utilitarianism is refuted because it only concerns itself with instances in which there is no cost to oneself, which are far too rare to affirm this resolution. --My cases from Moral Nihilism, Ethical Egoism, and the Reduction of Suffering are all still standing, unaffected by Pro's rebuttals; all three contentions can function independently to negate the resolution. . To Bsh1: Many thanks for engaging in this debate with me; it was really challenging, but definitely a great experience, being my first time ever debating someone as skilled as yourself! I hope I posed at least somewhat of a challenge to you :PAlso, many thanks to anyone who takes the time to read and vote on a debate as lengthy as this one.