Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

I'm not going to lie, I'm highly dissapointed in this debate. Instead of having a debate over actual substance and philosophy and things that I actually hoped for, the debate devolved into a meta-analysis of what a resolution is. Which is fine. I don't mind a decent meta-debate every now and then.The debate breaks down into one simple point at the end of the day: do I have to enact the resolution to affirm it.The first answer to this is in the analysis under my third argument. Funny enough he attacks the examples I give here but doesn't actually respond to my argument being made here: that resolutions are truth-statements and that the sides are defending the validity of the statement or attacking the validity of the statement. He never responded to this argument, rather just attacked the notion that it's silly to question whether or not resolutions are meant to be implimented. Because he never responds to this, it's a conceded argument proving why I don't have to enact the resolution.The second answer to this is the second argument I make that he has, again, dropped. This is saying how he's already agreed to abide by my definition of moral obligation, which states that an obligation is something that we morally ought to do but are not required to do. This is a direct refutation to this notion of I have to enact the resolution and he agreed to it. Don't let him back out of it now because that's highly unfair to me.The third answer to this is the first argument I make which is where I say the definition of what it means to affirm the resolution is, definitionally, to say something is true. Not "show in the real world" or "impliment". Just to say that it's true. Which means that affirming the resolution means that I just have to say that the resolution "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need" is true. Which has absolutely nothing to do with actually going to assist them. Even if you don't like the fact that I accidently left out the link to the dictionary site I used from my round and had to post it in the comments, which shouldn't sway you much since it's just a common dictionary definition and shouldn't change a whole lot, he drops this argument as well. That's three separate reasons why I don't have to impliment the resolution. Three separate reasons that he hasn't responded to. There's literally no reason to not have this argument flow aff. And this is the game-over mistake for my opponent because this takes out every argument he's made so far because his entire argument this entire debate has been "there could be instances of when we're assisting we do something bad, so we shouldn't do it in every situation, and thus it's not an obligation". But since I don't have to show how we impliment the resolution, he doesn't have a single argument you can vote off of for this debate. Game over, affirm right here.BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. Even if you don't buy any of those reasons, let's go to this entire concept of his "counter-plan" that he explains in Round 4.If he wants to get technical with the LD link, then two can play that game. If he's really running a counter-plan, he has no plan-text (saying what specifically links to your CP and doesn't link to your CP, essentially what ground your CP covers, which is the MOST ESSENTIAL PART OF A CP), inherency (Why the affirmative is perpetuating this problem and it isn't just occuring naturally regardless of side), uniqueness (how only he can solve for this issue and why I can't fix it), or solvency (how he even fixes the problem in the first places), despite me repeatedly calling for these warrants this entire debate. His entire "counter-plan" consists of a few randomly picked examples with no actual real-world link and saying how this disproves an obligation. Absolutely no link and no warrant present anywhere here. The best part? He says in round three "I don't warrant why assisting people violates their rights because that is not my point, " then turns around in the very next round and says that's exactly what his point is. Don't let him shift the goalposts on me, force him to stay to one stance. Moreover, even if he isn't shifting the goalposts here, he still needs this warrant. If he's trying to prove "if affirming violates rights, then we ought not assist", then he needs to show how I actually violate these rights, otherwise the argument has no warrant and no impact. That's like saying "If seatbelts give people herpes while they're driving, we ought not wear seatbelts" without showing how seatbelts give people herpes. This means there's literally cannot be a place for him to win in this resolution, which means it's an easy vote for the affirmative.BUT DON'T CHANGE THE CHANNEL YET, THERE'S STILL MORE TO COME.The only remaining possible place you could potentially even consider voting negative is off of the Kantian-CI-Obligations-thingy debate. So let's go there now.The biggest problem here is the only reason he claims affirming doesn't meet CI is that there could be examples where people's rights get hurt if we do this. Since this relies on the resolution being something I have to enact, which I already refuted above in three separate ways, he has no offense here either. Moreover, even if you still don't buy that assisting people fits as a CI, then you just look to the aff case where I prove that we have a moral obligation through empathy, which he has yet to refute, which is the entire purpose of the AC. The only thing on my case that he's touched is that the language in Gintis et al says that I could potentially harm people, but he doesn't respond to the actual warrants behind anything in my contentions, and even agrees to abide by my framework (which I'll talk about more in just a moment), so even if assiting others in need isn't a CI, I can still prove that we have an obligation outside of the negative case and in my unrefuted AC.BUT IF YOU STILL NEED ANOTHER REASON TO VOTE FOR ME, KEEP READING ON.My entire case stands unrefuted. The only kind of responses he's put against my case is saying the language in one of my cards could potentially justify harming someone (which I responded to, which he didn't reply back to) and that we prefer to help people who are closer to us (which I responded to, which he didn't reply back to). This means that you can cleanly extend out every contentional argument I make. The best part of this? He agrees to abide by my framework. This means that even if you don't buy a single argument I've made thus far, if you still have no idea what you're going to vote for in this debate, you default affirmative because a) I'm the only one trying to actually link to my framework. He's promoting not assisting people whereas I'm promoting assisting people, which means that the only one who has any kind of link into the framework is me, and that b) you default aff anyway because even if acting potentially harms the rights of a few people, it's outweighed by all the rights of the other people we assisted and helped whos rights are now protected and secured (hence the prefer aff argument I made in my case, don't let him say this is a new argument because I made it at the very beginning of my case). BREAK IT DOWN FOR ME, ZARADI!The debate breaks down super easily. You're going to affirm because:1. I'm proving in three different ways I don't have to prove implimentation, which destroys literally every single argument my opponent makes because they're all hingent on him winning that.2. Even if you don't buy that, I showed how my opponents arguments in the "counter-plan" have no warrant or link into my case, so there's no reason to prefer them. I'm also showing how I fit the CI, and it doesn't matter if I do or not anyway since I'm proving through my case how I prove an obligation.3. My case remains virtually unrefuted and his only non-responsive rebuttals have been refuted, extend it all across the flow.4. But last and not least, even if you still need a place to affirm, you default to aff because I'm at least doing the best job of trying to meet my framework, whereas he's not doing any work to meet it, despite agreeing to fall under it. Four reasons to affirm, and no reason to negate. I say that's a solid aff win.