Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

As a road map I will first build up my own case by rebutting my opponents attacks on my case starting with the value/vc debate, and then going on to my contentions. After this i will go on to attack my opponents case. He attacked my value and value criterion by saying liberty doesn't uphold morality using an example of a women seeking abortion not being moral. This is a complete opinion and should be discounted. Id like to point you to the theory of moral relevance that shows not everyone's morality is the same. It is obviously moral to the women and even if it is not your view you have to respect hers. In every sense respecting someones liberty is moral. On the other hand, his value and value criterion are the same thing, which shows complete ignorance for Lincoln Douglas form. He is upholding the greatest good for society with a net benefit of the greatest good. His vc is also abusive. Their is no way for the negative to uphold this because the net benefits will always fall with the aff. He has even shown this on his attack on my C1 and C2. So you must prefer my value and value criterion because it can be upheld by everyone. On his attack on my contention one he only attacks my sub point a and fails to mention anything on my sub point b So all further arguments on that are null and void. It is now held that everyone shall agree with my example of the organ donor and the fact that certain situations are immoral when mandated by the resolution. In his attack he basically attacks the tagline saying that even if it is a moral obligation, altruism still happens. He fails to realize that im saying it is immoral to obligate assisting in need and that we can progress (as we have for thousands of years) without obligation. My first point is so Because the only reason people will assist is that they are fearful of being immoral. my opponent is still making people assist when it intervenes with their life, values, morals, and well being. This is absolutely ridiculous. on his attack on my contention two he continues with his concern for the achieval of net benefits. When however i am arguing that not always does the net benefit of affirming happen, which i have shown through everyone one of my examples in my case. If something doesn't work 100% percent of the time then it cannot be an obligation. Look at other moral obligations like not killing innocent people. It works all the time. If a person does kill an innocent person they are deemed immoral for violating the moral obligation. Because the purpose of assisting people in need doesn't work all the time it can't be obligatory. This is the main point and SHOULDN'T BE IGNORED. And finally his attack on my contention 3 is based on the fact that there is no study on the matter. He is right that I have no study, but that does not discredit my contention. If you think about it, why should a homeless person work when everything is handed to him? Some have obviously lacked the ambition to help society in the first place. Now look to this source of fake homeless people http://neighbors.denverpost.com... . These people have found it more beneficial to always want assistance than to follow their dreams and goals. This also discredits societal welfare in this situation because now they are draining society without providing any benefits to society. He goes on to say altruism pales in comparison to one's dreams and goals. My opponent contradicts himself because I could say the same thing for his point. Who is to say someones recieval of altruism doesn't override their goals. You say it from personal opinion as have I. The choice the voters have to make is to accept the old Chinese proverb - Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life. Now by affirming and having the original intent to assist someone in need your not truly assisting them in need. This leads into paradoxical ethics. So now you must conclude Affirmation=paradox. Now on to my oppenents case, In his contention 1 he is distinguishing between need and want. Basically he is telling everyone to live at the bare minimum and to donate everything else to charity because in his opinion it is the most moral thing to do. This is completely ridiculous; you can't have everybody working to support other people's lives without enjoying their own. This defeats the whole purpose of the pursuit of happiness. And that is a value I think we all can share. In your contention 2 the situations of assisting in need you're advocating, you're not focusing on the individual aspect of the resolution. So you're arguments aren't really topical. The only way for an individual to help is to donate to your certain charities. Now you're asking everyone to conform to your beliefs and your values. Not everyone is as passionate about your charities as you are and you have to respect that. People may choose to donate their donatable money to other charities that don't assist people in need like PETA or the united Negro college fund or any college fund for that matter. By your logic you're saying it is immoral to not donate to YOUR charity.