One should defend the weak against the powerful

RFV
I do not think 'either side has 'quite enough to justify winning the debate,
Perhaps if the debate was longer, each could have addressed each others arguments, but with there being only one round, what I see are decent arguments for either view, but 'limited, not as fully expounded on as they might have been.

Debate Feels a bit Binary, cool though how it reminds me of Jade Empire Open Palm vs Closed Fist.

In the situation, is the individual who might help, strong or weak?
Do they know the Weak or Powerful individual very well?
Are there smaller or less direct ways to help?
Should I assume this is about bullying?
What are the consequences?

Does the weaker individual 'deserve help, as in are they both weak and a jerk?
Though even if they are a jerk, I think an 'ideal good person would 'try to help the weak person, if 'possible.

Pro Round 1
The weak 'deserve it, usually has to do with the idea of not choosing to be stronger, I think.
But of course people often have 'limits to their strength, even 'assuming they were 'willing to cultivate power.
Another idea of 'deserving hm, perhaps has to do with 'expectation of what will 'occur when certain individuals consistently make bad decisions. Gullible individuals for example. Though, I still find it hard to say myself, that they 'deserve to be taken advantage of.
They likely 'will be taken advantage of though, unless they can change.

Pro Arguments
1 " by definition, weak ones cannot defend themselves and thus are of no threat to the powerful ones"
Though 'some people can change and become powerful, or strong 'enough. I admit there are people and some situations, where such becomes exceptional to the point of unexpected to occur.

2 "option 2 guarantees our own survival is misleading, as survival isn't everything." With addition of "being obedient to the powerful ones does not guarantee survival."
True enough, there are people whose conscience 'rags them, for not acting to help another when they 'could have. Or curse their fate in being under the thumb of an evil individual, even when in a better position than the person victim-most.
Though 'dying to protect the weak, I think is an 'exceptional amount of self sacrifice.
. . . It is also a fair point, and one common known, that appeasement is often not effective, whilst preventing a 'system of persecution from being, can be a greater security.
But. . . There are many situations that are 'temporary, school for example, though memory and conscience are eternal.
. . . Also, it can be a bad habit to avoid righteous action.
But on another hand, sticking your nose in, can get it pinched, people generally don't like pain.

Still, I think Pro has 'decent arguments, just some possible holes here and there.

Con Arguments
Are interesting, as they are 'also in mind to help the weak, by esteeming the values of change and growth.
'Just being a grand example though, I am doubtful will 'change many weak people, 'unless the example is 'specifically that of a weak individual showing they are not 'so weak when they put their mind to it, whether in a mere moment or over time in building strength.

There are strong people everywhere, but being an example is often not 'enough I suspect, but debate is vague. 'Could refer to countries or companies.
As Pro did not include options in description, Con 'probably could have got away with a third option, helping the weak defend themselves or even fighting alongside them,
Feed a man a fish vs Teach a man to fish, thinking.

Neither Pro 'nor Con though, have examples of humans rising to the occasion, weakness to strength. Or failing to ever rise without help.
There 'are examples one can argue, Clothes to Africa for example, 'some though not all argue hinders business in Africa.
Con 'does have dogs as an example though.