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

First I would like to clarify my case because from my opponents constructive she seems to not understand my position. One. Assisting someone is always morally right Two. We expect people to do morally right actions. Now without stating my third contention we can already conclude that we expect people to do morally right actions. If this is true than we are obligated to do said action. So expectation for someone else=obligation for yourself. If this wasn't true than it would be hypocritical to expect anybody to do anything. It should be mentioned the actual ability to do such a action is considered but it is rare that if you expect people to do actions that you cannot a accomplish. My opponent states that morality is to broad a criterion but this is untrue because I will use morality as the primary tool to reach duty therefore making it inherently valid. Unfortunately my opponent has took a rather predictable route in suggesting Moral Realism even though it is inherently related to Egoism and may even go as far as to being related. But if I refute the moral realist position then I win this debate because my opponents position is invalid. For one it assumes the classical Naturalistic fallacy of assuming(which is false by the way) that what 'is' has anything relating to what 'should be'. It should be noted it is impossible(in ethics) to derive an ought from a is. Let me define moral realist;The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. "Because values derive from life, and because only particular living organisms exist, ethics is inherently egoistic" Incorrect. While we can say they are somewhat egotistical my opponent negates Biological Altruism or if she doesn't she doesn't know biology. Also my opponents derive from life, but this is also incorrect because a morally right action in one distinct operation may not be morally right when dealing with a different person or if a different person is in the same situation the morals would change. But to suggest this is ridiculous. Morals are absolute. This is the concept of morality. She also claims that it would be impossible to hold values without being alive, granted, but she also claims that we must do what furthers ourselves without infringing upon others rights but these are conflicting ideas, because the example she uses is nature but the Bear has no consideration for the salmons rights but according to this philosophy what is morally right must not infringe upon some elses rights or maybe a better word is livelihood. My opponent might try to argue it is a just thing for the bear but based on that own argument we must consider hunting, fishing, and corporate business practices immoral. We do have reason to think following ones self interest is bad because(from Unitarianism we conclude bad) it leads to negative consequences. We have to consider the fact that being selfish maybe be good in the short term but long term we must be selfless because it is in ourselves interest to do so. To sum that up I am saying that if one is to act in ones self interest the theory contradicts itself at the very core, because often it is in our self-interest to act in a way that may short termly impede our own self interest. My opponent is arguing a subjective moral relativist point but using ones self interest instead of culture as typically presented. Because she saying that morals are not subjective just values he negates to mention what morality is made up of. I will attempt to break moral subjectivism in this debate because if moral subjectivism is broken so is my opponents cases. I also disagree with her suggestion that morality is required to support values, my support for this claim is simple. One, Aristotle's virtue theory and two if this were true then any morality could fit the bill depending on the values one might or may not have. Also I would argue the social contract is one that is just as binding as a real one. In fact as Ayn Rand argues if a libertarian society was instituted we would have a much greater realization of the obligation we have and our own personal altruism. Also it should be noted that if societal welfare is to be considered than personal altruism is surely a obligation. Lastly I would like to address the should or suggestion acussation she says that what I saying is merely a suggestion rather than a morally required action but this is contradictory because there are two problems with this line of thinking; 1. If this were true then what would the point of morals if not to be obligatory, I would ask my opponent to try and refrain(when answering this) from using Morally neuter actions and 2nd. If we expect people to do morally right actions then we are obligated to do such a action. I would ask my opponent to also refrain from using strictly monetary forms as examples because assistance rarely comes in the form of money. My opponent is really using a single argument case that I have refuted all over this debate unless my opponent can hold her contention up I can see no other vote but the affirmative today.