Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

My opponent (hilariously) keeps trying to push me into doing things that are entirely unecessary and continues cherry-picking examples and saying "this is the trend", which are the major reasons why my arguments still stand and why you're affirming. But let's get more specific.There's a few places specfically that this debate is getting narrowed down to, which is what the resolution means, do these obligations exist, and does helping people really help them. I'll go in order.But before I begin, I want to make one crucial point crystal clear to the voters: my opponent provides no other kind of weighing mechanism to vote off of. He even concurs to fall under my framework. This is a damning mistake on my opponent's part because you have to default to my value and criterion since he provides no other weighing mechanism for the round. Why this is a damning mistake is that because you are defaulting to my value and criterion, the vote becomes a simple judgement of who is being most consistent with empathy. This is a guaranteed affirmative vote because not only does my opponent have absolutely no link into my framework, not only that he's not even attempting to link into my framework due to the fact that he's trying to REFUTE the concept of empathy instead of showing how he does it better, but even if you don't buy a single argument I have made or will make this entire debate, you STILL affirm because I have the best chance of actually being consistent with empathy since I'm the only one even attempting to link into to it. This is literally as far as you have to read this debate. Don't let him go back and try to change this, he's already conceded to fall under my framework, hold him to it.Now to respond to the rest of the debate.Part One: The ResolutionFirst: The problem with what my opponent is saying that I have to prove that we should enact this and how we enact this is that it's not in the resolution. He makes the claim that because I'm affirming it I have to show that it's worth doing, but that's just a misrepresentation of what it means to affirm something. Affirm literally means " to say that something is true in a confident way, to show a strong belief in or dedication to [something]"(1). So to affirm the resolution, all I have to do is say that the resolution as stated is true. As such, as I've clearly stated before, all I have to do is prove that we have the moral obligation to assist people in need. How we do it or why we do it is absolutely irrelevant. Second: Even if you buy his "worthy" argument here, he already accepted my definition of "moral obligation" which was that a moral duty that one isn't required to uphold. So even if I do have to prove that we ought to enact the resolution, I still don't have to prove implimentation as per the defintions of the resolution. And don't let him go back on this because he agreed to it in the very first round, so hold him to it. Third: This view that the affirmative must show that the resolution is worth enacting is silly. How do we enact the resolution "The Keystone XL Pipeline should be constructed", petition to Congress to start it up? How do we enact the resolution "God probably exists", enter the seminary to spread his good will? His argument is inconsistent with what a resolution is. A resolution is a simple statement who's validity is being challenged. One person is defending the validity of the statement (affirming the resolution) while the other is challenging it's validity (negating the resolution). It's not a question of policy-making, but rather truth-testing. If the resolution is true (That individuals do indeed have obligations to assist those in need), then you affirm. If the resolution is false (that individuals don't have obligations to assist those in need), then you negate. Showing why we ought to enact the resolution is irrelevant since that's not what a resolution is.As such, all I have to do is show that the obligation exists. This is a game-over point for my opponent because his entire case revolves around the concept of the when, how and why, when the resolution is essentially a yes or no question and all of the details he's trying to bring up against me are outside of the scope of the debate. This de-links nearly every argument he makes against me, aside from maybe the Kant stuff which I'll get to in a moment. And since he didn't provide any other weighing mechanism for the round to be evaulated under he HAS to link to my framework, which he's failing to do on multiple levels.Part Two: ObligationsFirst: The entire first paragraph under the Kant stuff is just talking about how I don't explain the how, when, why, etc. As already explained, I don't have to defend that. Second: No warrant as to why I'm neither type. Moreover, no warrant as to why I have to follow Kantian logic. I'm proving through my framework and contentional arguments as to why we have a moral obligation through empathy, which my opponent still has not sufficiently refuted any of the warrants behind. And since there's no warrant for why empathy has to be categorical (nor is there a warrant for why empathy isn't categorical other than the cherry-picking examples I've already refuted), you can still affirm that I'm proving a moral obligation through my case.Third: His only response to the turn I made against the CI is that he's provided examples to where it could potentially be harmful but it's still just his cherry-picked examples. He's STILL failed to provide a warrant as for a) that these situations happen in the real world and b) if these examples he's giving are a trend representative of what happens in the real world or that they're just outlier cases or that c) that the "harms" in his cases outweigh the benefits of assisting or compromises any significant moral rights. Insofar as he hasn't done that, the turn still stands, you can affirm here. Fourth: My opponent claims that his point isn't what I'm attacking. If his point really is that the assisting violates people's rights, thus shouldn't happen, he NEEDS TO WARRANT WHY THIS IS TRUE. I could say that "if airbags potentially break bones upon deployment, then we shouldn't use airbags in cars" which is a) a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise and b) an unwarranted assertion. I never show you how the airbags break bones nor how often this actually happens, and neither has my opponent. In order for his point to have any kind of weight, HE NEEDS THIS WARRANT. He's not giving it to you. Therefore, there's no reason to evaluate or give any kind of credence to his argument here. Part Three: ContentionsGroup pretty much all of my opponents responses from "2. Nature of Humans" to "break-down":First: This is, again, outside the scope of the resolution. This entire section talks about various ways I fail to warrant the hows and whens, which I've already explained is outside of the scope of the debate. You can drop all of this here. But even if you don't buy this argument:Second: Start on the first paragraph of the segment. The entire "obligations shift between societies" implies that the obligation exists in the first place. This is automatic affirmation of the resolution if you buy his argument since it assumes that an obligation to others exists, which is exactly what the resolution asks me to affirm. Third: My opponent misses the point of my defense to the contradiction. My defense was that he's making a false comparison of two different situations that aren't comparable. No where in his second paragraph talking specifically about the "contradiction" does he address this, rather just addresses the semi-joking explanation to the criminal example. Moreover, even if you buy the contradiction in the card, the contradiction still doesn't address the actual warrant behind what Gintis et al is saying, which REMAINS unaddressed. Lastly, I want to address the paragraph starting with "Aff's defense of the res. is quite comical actually". Again, my opponent has failed to warrant how assisting the needy is morally impermissible. He has given a bunch of random, cherry-picked examples of things that could potentially harm one party in some way with no warrant for if this actually happens in the real world and if this is a notable trend rather than just outlier cases that don't depict what actually is the case and saying that it makes it impermissible, thus obligations don't exist. Let's put this in syllogism form for you to see clearer:P1: X example is possibleP2: X example potentially violates someone's rights were we to assist them in X exampleC1: It would be impermissible to assist themC2: Obligations to assist people don't existNot only does the first conclusion not follow from the premises, but the second conclusion doesn't follow from the first. I have an obligation as a brother to punch my sister's abusive boyfriend in the face for being abusive, but that doesn't make it a permissible action. Moreover, a fatal flaw in this implimentation argument from my opponent is that he never considers the possibility that we can just find a way to assist them without harming them. There's nothing in his evidence or analysis that says that it isn't possible. To summarize:1. The debate is auto-affirmed because my opponent fails to provide any kind of weighing mechanism, and is thus forced to fall under mine. That makes the debate a "who is more consistent with empathy" debate, which I'm the only one even trying to win. Vote here.2. Virutally every response made by Con is outside the resolution. That leaves my arguments uncontested. Vote here.3. My opponent's examples are unwarranted as to why they depict any kind of real world trend. Nor does he explain why we can't just help people without hurting them. Vote here. 4. Even if you don't buy empathy for some reason, I'm proving assisting others fits as a CI. Vote here.