Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

"Define your value and value criterion. Simply mistating them, omitting a value, and not describing them is not enough. One must define and have a value (LD debate does not typically accept Kritiks); one must also define the particular theory of a philosopher if one so choses to use it as a value criterion. " I advice my opponent to read my first AC case. in my case, I omitted a "CORE VALUE", however, i provided a value, I defined this value as well as explained the value of my case. I also defined a theory in which this value criterion was defined from. "My opponent has not clashed with my value, value criterion, contentions, reasoning, or introduction. Rendering upholding my own case unnecessary." As for contentions, my opponent restated his contentions during his first rebuttal. I clashed against these argument and presented reasonable evidence showing how invalid it is. As far value, value criterion, my opponent has not argued against them nor have he even tried to acknowledge them. "My value criterion of moral responsibility is superior to his value criterion of Neitzschean theory, because I at least described mine. He has yet to indicate which Neitzschean theory he is using. Throughout my contentions, which link directly to my value of morality through my concrete value criterion of moral responsibility, I have demonstrated that individuals have a moral responsibility to assist people in need." Throughout this debate, my opponent continued to rant about me not having a value, now he contradicts himself by acknowledging that i did value. The only other problem is that my opponent did not read my opening case, thus mistaking my value within the round. My value of will to power should be seen as the dominant value within this debate, because it has not been attacked through out the round. As for his value criterion, I have proven through my rebuttal that Moral responsibility does not equal moral obligation. My opponent failed to show any evidence of moral obligation and thus looses the entire round. "He has responded to my RC1 and RC2 though. In his response to my RC1 insinuation that the world would be better if we prevented callous suffering, he reiterates that denying people suffering people the suffering that would make them stronger is wrong. At this point, that assertion has been proven to be a baseless claim. " Through out this round my opponent failed to argue against my argument that helping people helps them in terms of strength. In respond to my statement ""the only way to overcome suffering is by embracing it,"" my opponent fails to provide any reasonable argument to contradict this, meaning that my entire case still stands. "My opponent's case has already been clashed with and my arguments still stand." ones again, my opponent uses his contention in his rebuttal which I attacked thus, i have refuted his argument. in the last Rebuttal, I argued That none of my opponent contentions demonstrated moral obligation and thus should be dropped. He didn't respond to this argument, meaning that his case remains void. In conclusion, throughout the debate, my opponent have failed to uphold his position that moral obligation exist and he fails to provide any reasonable arguments on my case, so my case still stands. As Neg, I do not have to do any things but prove that the pro's position is unreasonable and unrealistic. I continue to do this and thus should win the debate.