Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Two things to note before I go through his rebuttals:First; My opponent didn't make any arguments in favor of the resolution. All of his arguments were specifically refuting the arguments I raised. This means that you already negate the resolution by default as there are no reasons as to why the resolution is true. I'm giving you four different layers explaining how the resolution is false. That's game.Secondly, my opponent drops my first contention explaining how, on an ontological level, the concepts of invidivuals as an identity doesn't exist. This means that it's impossible for individuals to have a moral obligation, since individuals don't exist to begin with. This is an instant negative vote. Now to go through his refutations. Start with his refutations to Wittgenstein:First: my opponent is misunderstanding what Wittgenstein is saying. What Wittgenstein is saying is that we can't be making broad statements of truth with absolute certainty because those statements are impossible to verify. We can have an idea as to the truth behind an inductive statement, but we'll never know for certain if it's actually valid or not. Hence, inductive reasoning is false. Secondly: There's a difference between inductive reasoning (what I'm attacking) and deductive reasoning (what I'm using to attack it). Feel free to educate yourself: http://www.livescience.com...With Wittgenstein defended, you can extend out the second contention of Wittgenstein saying that inductive reasoning is false. This makes the statement of the resolution impossible to actually prove true, and therefore it's an instant negative vote. Now, go to his refutations against metaethics:First: It doesn't look like my opponent understands what metaethics actually is in his attempt at semantically refuting my third contention. Feel free to read up as to what metaethics is (http://plato.stanford.edu...) here. Second: My opponent essentially concedes to the argument I'm making in his attempt to refute it "Moral statements differ between cultures, there is no reason to believe that there is any objective moral truth.", this is literally the entire argument being made by Mackie 1. Third: To respond to this statement ("However, you should not assume that other cultures are moral. Our morality is bounded by knowledge."). First off this makes literally zero sense. Second off this suggests that morality is subjective, rather than objective. If this is true then you instantly negate the resolution since if morality is subjective, there can't be objective moral obligations, making the resolution automatically false. And third off there's literally no warrant behind his assertion that morality is bound by knowledge, it's just a bare assertion of his. Fourth: My opponent drops the argument coming out of Mackie 2, which is the argument from Queerness. Because we don't have the capabilities to understand objective moral thoughts as humans, our moral statements are inherently flawed and false. With my third contention defended you can extend out that, talking about how error theory proves that all moral statements are inherently false. This means that the resolution is inherently false, thus meaning a negative vote.Now move on to....f*ck...the rest of it, sans the last paragraph.First: this entire section of my opponent's rebuttal literally makes zero sense.Second: there's no actual relevance to the debate at hand. If there is one it's so absolutely muddled that the LINK to the debate is non-sensical.Essentially, please opponent, clarify on what the literal f*ck you're trying to say from "#4) The philosophy of inaction" to "the betterment of the nation as a whole."Now, move onto the last paragraph of my opponent's round. First, the entire thing is one big, jumbled, confusing, unwarranted assertion. Second, off of the statement "our positive obligation must hold strong. ", I'm already refuting this. Look to my first conention, which was dropped, that talks about how the identity of an individual doesn't exist, therefore we cannot hold obligations. Then look to the second contention which talks about how these inductive arguments are inherently false because inductive reasoning is false. Then look to my third contention, half of which was dropped, which explains how moral statements like these are false.I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot, so I'm just going to summarize everything now:1. My opponent dropped the entirety of contention one, which is the ontological point, as well as Mackie 2 from contention three which talks about the Argument from Queerness and how we as human beings don't have the capabilities to understand objective moral facts, therefore the moral statements we make are inherently false. These are two reasons how the resolution as a statement is false, which means a negative vote.2. My opponent misunderstood contention two in his argument. I'm successfully defending it and extending it across, proving how inductive reasoning is false. That makes inductive statements (like the resolution) false, which means you negate. 3. My opponent's arguments against the error theory were based off semantics and misunderstanding. Error theory proves how all moral statements are false, therefore the moral statement being made by the resolution is false. 4. My opponent's arguments against the act-omission distinction literally make zero sense. If the act-omission distinction is true then the resolution is an easy negative vote since that makes all omissions permissible, which the negative side is. 5. And to top it all off, even if you don't buy a single argument I've made in the round, it's okay because my opponent hasn't even made one. He hasn't made a single argument in support of the resolution, rather deciding to focus all of his efforts in refuting my arguements. This means you're defaulting to the negative on a) a risk of of an impact, and b) beacuse he's failing to uphold his burden of proof of showing how we have a moral obligation to assist people in need.