Affirmative (Nick Larew) V: Morality -Preservation of good/avoidance of bad VCr: Moral Consequentialism - Based on respecting dignity C1: Assisting

people in need respects dignity C2: Maxing morality = obligation C3: Our moral oblig = limited a. A priori self-deference

1NR Cant quantify. We can quantitively see if someone has freedom or not. Indivs should be able to choose 1. free will infringed when duty imposed 2. no freedom in compulsion By not assisting we arent causing harm. We should choose when we help and when we dont help. What if our help were to harm them? NR to C3

1AR Can we see all the factors that affect decision making? How is this freedom any more quantitative than morality? Indivs are able to choose, just they have to choose to help if they wish to be moral. 1. Yes, this is the nature of a duty 2. There is freedom, see above See the CX:Second quote point below Explain why this goes aff

2NR Exercising rights = neg value The aff runs two values, morality and dignity: he needs to choose. V1: Aff is based on helping being good, not a positive obligation V2: Freedom>Morality V3: Autonomy > M. Consequentialism V4: Aff runs two values

b. Obligation = scope-limited Negative (Arshi Singh) V: Freedom VCr: Autonomy -Independence of ones actions/wills C1: Indivs dont have a moral obligation to assist a) Supererogatory b) Ob. limited to non-self-harm C2: Competent individuals have the right to choose a) before autonomy is usurped, must prove incompetence b) Indivs should judge what they think is morally right/wrong

1AR There are outside limitations to freedom/autonomy these are our obligations! Otherwise no laws, rules, order, etc. I agree that assistance is good, but say that it isnt supererogatory. CX: obligation to prevent evil. Thus were obligated to help if we can. C1b agree with my C3a There are other manners to usurp autonomy, such as laws, rules, etc. Moral relativism? This is bad for numerous reason, incl. misdefining morality and murder being good.

2NR Social contract limits -Respect dignity, thats why I dont kill you -People are forced to assist Yeah its good, but why compulsory Negative obligation positive oblig Social contract NOT a reason for pos obligation Why do we need to universalize? -Ones morality is there own, it isnt universal

2AR People arent forced to assist All negative obligations carry an associated positive obligation V1: Freedom is good, but it can be limited by outside duties, such as a moral oblig. Non-inherent to neg, thus aff wins Value clash V2: Non-assistance = harm V3: Neg world allows for relativism, murder etc. Aff world maxes morality, best world. V4: Compulsion vs. Universality