Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

I'll just address the "clarification" (if you can call it that) that I asked for in the previous round, then summarize what has happened this debate and why you'll be voting negative. But let's start with the clarification (the clarification part, at least I think it is, is the paragraph from "Your last point. You accuse " to "(Or maybe he didn't). " just for a heads-up):Like, the only thing I get from this is that he's saying the only reason I can advocate for the arguments I'm advocating for is because of the laws and judicial system set up by the US and that because I'm asking for voters to vote in my favor that I don't actually believe in the stance that I'm taking. First of all there's literally no relevance to this at all in the debate. It's not even relevant to any of the arguments I've made. At best it's just off-topic. At worst it's ad hom (you don't even believe in your own arguments, so they shouldn't matter at all). So in light of this, you can extend out my fourth contention talking about the act-omission distinction as a reason to negate today. He hasn't responded to any of the arguments coming from there. And since it's going conceded you can vote off of it. If the act-omission distinction is true, then omissions become permissible, which is what negating functions as (not assisting people in need). Now lets go up a few paragraphs to the paragraph that goes from "Sure, inductive reasoning is false. " to "Sure, inductive reasoning is false. ". My opponent continues to misconstrue what the Wittgenstein evidence is saying. He does it this time by saying that, essentially, inductive and deductive reasoning are the same thing (they aren't, an explanation of the differences between the two can be viewed in the source I provided last round). But even if they were, that doesn't mean we automatically have a "come to Jesus" moment. If we assume that inductive/deductive reasoning is false, then the resolutional statement "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need" cannot possibly be a true statement. It negates itself. Essentially, my opponent conceeded to the argument, again. So extend out my contention three, which is the Wittgenstein argument, which talks about how inductive reasoning is false because it's impossible to verify. Because the resolution is an inductive statement, it's false which means it's automatically negated. Since that covers pretty much everything he said this round, time to summarize.1. My opponent again dropped my first contention, which was the argument about how individuals as an identity don't exist, therefore making it impossible for "individuals" to have a moral obligation. Don't let him touch on this in the next round as that's highly unfair to me. You vote negative here.2. I'm clearly winning the Wittgenstein debate, and proving that because inductive reasoning is false, and because the resolution is an inductive statement, that the resolution is automatically false, meaning you negate the resolution here as well.3. My opponent dropped my contention three here entirely. This is the argument about error theory and about how all moral statements are false, and since the resolution is a moral statement, it is therefore false and you negate the resolution here. Don't let him touch on this in the next round as that's highly unfair to me.4. My opponent concedes my fourth contention as well, which I already talked about and explained above. You can negate off of it as well.5. And the best part of it all. Even if you don't like a single argument I've presented so far, if you don't buy a single word I've said this entire debate, you still negate the resolution because my opponent still hasn't even made an argument in affirmation of the resolution. All of his arguments have been in refutation to mine, but never once has he argued for why individuals have a moral obligation, rather he's just argued for why I'm wrong. This means that you negate the resolution because a) of a risk of impact, I'm the only one who's affecting the resolution via arguments, b) burden of proof. He had the burden of proof to prove that individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. He failed to meet that burden, therefore you negate, and c) risk of clash. I'm the only one creating arguments and content to create clash and actually have a debate. Therefore I'm doing the most work and therefore more likely to be the winner.