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

Sadly, I was hoping that my opponent would offer more resistance than he did. He misinterprets what my case is saying, and just flat-out doesn't understand most of it. I'd like to clarify on what my case talks about, and why his arguments are non-responsive and don't apply.First, he places an argument on the entirety of my framework that basically says, more or less, that I don't show why we ought to value my framework. This argument is completely false, as my entire framework is riddled with explanation as to what it says and why it is true. Starting at Hagglund 1, where I explain that morality isn't some overarching normative structure, but rather an ethical dilemma that arises from our everyday encounters with the Other. This transitions to Hagglund 2 where it talks about how this account of ethics and the encounter with the Other defines the very possibility of ethics, which warrants why my framework functions apriori to my opponent's framework. From there we transfer to the first Westmoreland card that explains that under the epistemological concept set up by Hagglund, the only way we can explain the encounters with the other is if we ground our normative ethics in the ethics of hospitality. Now we transition to the reasons below the standard to prefer my framework, which my opponent has entirely neglected to talk about, which is the Hagglund 3 and 4 cards. All of this goes conceded in the last round, so you can cleanly extend it across the flow.Now to respond to his arguments against my first contention, which is the Westmoreland 2 evidence. His first point is I don't provide analysis as to why this makes the resolution true, but you can clearly look above the card and see how I say (and I will quote) "The ethics of hospitality requires that we are not only receptive to individuals in need but that we positively engage in them". This points a clear link to my framework and affirming the resolution, a warrant that he did not touch in his last round. The impact is clear cut in the card: under the ethics of hospitality, we are required to not only be receptive to people's suffering, but that we actively engage with them. This goes flat-out conceded, so you can cleanly extend it.Now for the arguments against the second contention, which is the Hagglund 5 card. To begin with, I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify on what his argument is saying, because the wording of it makes no sense. All my second contention is saying is that we are always open and obligated to the Other, which gives us the obligation to assist those in need through the ethics of hospitality. He concedes the warrant coming out of Hagglund 5, so it can be cleanly extended as well.Now onto the final argument against my third contention, which is the card by the Prophet, Jacqujes Derrida. This provides a clear link to the obligation to the Other and an obligation to assist people in need through the ethics of suffering. The warrant coming out of Derrida is perfectly clear on this. My opponent conceded this warrant, so you can cleanly extend it across the flow.To answer my opponent's question, our relation and obligation to assist people in need through our encounters with the Other mandate that we do whatever we can, regardless of it's effectiveness. So if the aid worked or not would be irrelevant to the discussion.Now, let's talk about my opponent's case. Let's start with his framework, first. I'd like to point out that he has absolutely no way of actually achieving his value of morality. Just because we maximize human agency, it doesn't mean that we create some "supreme morality". The link between the two is missing in his case, and he no warrant to prove the link is true. But then secondly, the only way we can achieve true agency is through our encounters and interactions with the Other, so I'm going to be outweighing my opponent and fulfilling his standard better than he is. Let's move onto his first contention, where he talks about how moral obligations don't exist because we all have the right to free will.1. I'm clearly showing in the AC how we have a clear moral obligation to assist others in need through our interactions and encounters with the Other, so this point is moot.2. Not all humans have the same human rights, as the government is what distributes our rights. To say everyone has the same rights is to say that women in America have the same rights as women in Iraq, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, which is entirely false. So his contention falls flat on his face there.3. But even if the first two arguments aren't true, he provides absolutely no warrant as to why having free will means an obligation cannot exist in society. He merely asserts it without any sort of evidence to back it up.His contention one is entirely false, as I have just shown. Let's move onto his second contention, where he says that we don't have the capability to assist everyone.1. You can extend the third observation at the top of my case that says the resolution isn't about whether or not we fulfill on obligation, but rather about whether it exists. This is true because of the word "have" in the resolution instead of words or phrases that indicate whether or not we can fulfill the obligation.2. The ethics of hospitality are grounded in the actualization of a moral obligation, not about it's fulfillment, so all I have to do is prove that under the ethics of hospitality, we would HAVE a moral obligation, not whether it would be possible to fulfill it. 3. All his Keke evidence is saying is that there's a principle in place for those who don't act upon their moral obligation, or fail to be able to act upon it, not that there isn't one in the first place. So his evidence isn't saying what he's trying to make it say. He's strawmanning the card.Thusly, his second contention falls flat on it's face. Now, let's talk about his third contention, that rests solely on his Murphy card.1. There's literally no warrant as to why what he's saying is true. He merely asserts it to be true with no reasoning or analysis as to why the claims made in the card are true. By affirming, we allow people to continue their encounters and interactions with the other, which is the only way to achieve true agency. So by affirming, we actually encourage agency, instead of destroying it.2. There's no link between having a moral obligation and destroying agency. This is a missing link in his third contention that makes it entirely false.3. Extend his own wording thiat this contention links SOLELY into his second contention. This means that the only way he can gain offense off of this argument is if he's winning his second contention. So if I'm refuting his second contention, he can't get any offense off of it.So at this point, the round breaks down pretty simply.1. My opponent hasn't touched on a single warrant in my case, and has vastly misinterpreted what it was saying. His arguments against it were non-responsive and entirely false.2. He has no link between his criterion and value, thus making it impossible for him to fulfill his own framework.3. By affirming, I better meet his own criterion than he is.4. I'm sufficiently refuting every single one of his contentions, as well as clearly extending my own.So at this point, the ballot is a really easy affirmative vote.