Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

So just starting from the top where he questions the morality behind a Egoistic society. The problem with it is all he does is takes the extreme side of the spectrum and tries to sell it off as the norm. But this is fallacious because:a) All an egoistic society really is is one where our actions are driven by what we want, and gives us no moral obligations what-so-ever. There is still charity and helpfulness and altruism in an egoistic world, but it all is for a reason in our self-interest. I.e. I can volunteer at an animal shelter, but the reason for that could be that I need volunteer hours to graduate from high school, and I could really care less about the animals or that there's a really cute girl that I want to see if I could get with or even more basic like volunteering there gives me a good feeling inside. Hence why I said that his offense flows negative as much as it does affirmative. b) The same thing can be done with altruism. Our extreme desire for others would only promote us to starve ourselves so that there is more food available for everyone else, to kill ourselves so that we can donate all of our organs to science or to people that need them, and other silly, extreme things like that. I don't want to live in a society that the normal is starving myself and then killing myself so that someone can have my brain and scientists can test on my spleen. That's where his first attack fails. Extend our Mercer 1 which establishes that society and morality is driven by the desire to realize self-regarding ends.His attack against my criterion is an entire straw-man of what my position says. Egoism does not reject altruism, but rather establishes that we do not hold a moral obligation through altruistic feelings, but that these altruistic feelings and actions are taken for an end of our own wanting (i.e. feeling good about ourselves, etc.) This attack also fails, so extend out my criterion of realizing self-regarding ends. This means that you're going to view the round today under an egoistic frame of mind. His idea for a turn on Egoism ultimately fails because even if he shows that it's in our self-interest to assist people in need, this doesn't prove that we are morally obligated to do so. Under egoism, we hold no moral obligations, which established in the Kalin evidence. So you can ignore the turn on egoism as false.The next paragraph is just not even close to true, and doesn't even make any sense. It commits the Slippery Slope fallacy, claiming that if it's in my best interest to use force to realize a self-regarding end, then suddenly EVERYONE will start using force and the world will come to an end in a spasmic rain of flaming, radioactive monkeys falling from the sky. But seriously, it really doesn't make any sense. Also, my opponent misunderstands that actions are not universalized under an Egoistic framework. To say that our actions are meant to be universalized would presume that we all have the same self-regarding ends, which is massively false. I certainly don't want the same ends in my life as my opponent does, or that imabench does, or that anyone else here does (well, maybe not everyone else, but you get my point). That's ultimately where his attack fails there.My opponent then only furthers my case when quoting Harris when he says that when we act in the benefit of others, chemicals in our brain are released that make us feel happy and satisfactory. If his case is true, and that we hold a moral obligation to act altruistically, then there would be no need for the brain to emit these chemicals that make us feel good about what we did, for we wouldn't need them in the first place! We would have to, as it's our moral obligation! But the mere fact that it does suggests that by helping others, we better ourselves (i.e. realize self-regarding ends. See where I'm going with this?). So you can actually turn this evidence to flow negative.My opponent's attacks against egoism have been superficial, at best, and have really not even hit the target and really been applicable to what egoism actually claims. Egoism isn't a doctrine that says we all should intentionally screw people over and laugh maniacly while plotting for world destruction. Egoism is a doctrine that says that we should, basically, just to what we want to do! If that means we become the largest donor of money to charity organizations like UNICEF, then go donate that money! If not, and you want to use that charity money to go buy yourself a nice, big soda from McDonalds, then go get you some soda! My opponent has attempted to blind you to one half of the spectrum, the spectrum that actually takes his case and makes it confirm my side of the case, and sell that the other half is the only half that exists. This trickery is false and entirely untrue. I ask that you fully extend my case across the flow and vote for the negative debater because of it.Of course, he also dropped all my attacks against his case, and still presumes that moral responsibility exists, so you can extend all that out as well.But anyway, resolution is still negated.