The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Everyone should donate to charities and fundraisers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 69076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




You know at your school or workplace, whether you're an adult or teen, there are always fundraisers going around? You also know how there is always that one person or group of people who never donate, who also happen to always have and excuse? I say that everyone should contribute to fundraisers because first of all, even 1 or 2 dollars can make a difference. At least you can say you donated something, right? Some people sadly say that they can't afford even the smallest donation, but if you're really that poor or needy, why are you even able to go to school? If you're at a workplace and you're working day and night to support you're family, then, you're right, it is quite unreasonable for you to donate if you're living on a dollar per day,but hardly anyone this needy is able to GO to work, so you really don't have a great excuse. It may sound harsh and cruel, but unless you're feeding off of charities too, you should consider helping others if your family is healthy and well-off. Just a few dollars is enough, because if everybody donates, it'll eventually sum up to a lot. It isn't fair if only those generous people are trying their very best to support other families and the rest aren't even trying. Saying," Sorry, I'm saving up for a house" or "Sorry, I'm saving up for a pool" is a really horrible reason, because while you're living a good life with 2 houses and a pool, others barely have shelters. So think not what your world can do for you, but what you can do for your world to MAKE IT BETTER.


Charity is not obligatory just because one person works with another. The reasons for not giving are more complex than just the dollar amount. Political or religious differences and disagreements may be motive to not give to one group or another. Even personal dislike of the individual soliciting for one charity or another.
Debate Round No. 1


True, there are also personal preferences and dislikes of certain charities and fundraisers. Understandably, if you are unable to donate because of religious and political policies, by all means, you aren't still forced to. Perhaps if you cannot donate, you can write a letter to inform the charity that maybe they should consider the religious and political factors. Of course, most charities like Terry Fox and Unicef are reasonable charities to give to, most fundraisers are there so other able people are able to help people in need. This isn't necessarily always the case though. Though not everybody is completely obliged to, some people, for the religious factor many people are becoming atheists and agnostics. For personal dislikes, unless you have a serious problem with what they're doing, you should consider the fact that some human beings with as much right to live as you have are dying out there.


Now the "Everyone should" is full of caveat.

- If I believe in the mission of the organization
- If they don't conflict with my religious or moral principals
- If I am not unhappy with the individual soliciting for the organization

Now, I have a personal endorsement for a particular charity or two? Well, Unicef has one of the worse overheads of any large charitable organization, yet another reason to choose to not donate.

The last point, "some human beings with as much right to live as you have are dying out there.". People have been dying for four-hundred thousand years. Charitable giving , in the form of money, can only be as old as the oldest monetary system. If we insist that giving money is mandatory as a part of compassion, is it also true that there was no compassion for 399,000 years?
Debate Round No. 2


The past is the past, besides people used to behead their king! Do you think they even knew what compassion was, if that's what people did? They didn't think about others in the world because they didn't have advanced technology and ways to find out the health and economic status of the rest of the world. Besides, most people had enough of their own worries back then to donate.
Personally, I think that the creation of fundraisers and charity was considerable and compassionate, and we don't only need to give money right? People use the money to buy things they need, but we can also give them clothes and food. If it is religiously offensive to donate some food or clothes? Neighbors always help each other, sometimes go to each others' houses for meals or holidays. If it is religiously or politically offensive to accept or show help and kindness, based on my opinion, this world would be cold and cruel.

This might seem unprofessional to some, but I would like to thank you for debating on this subject... I always wanted to know some people's opinions on this subject, and this is my first debate, so thank you very much. I'm new to this organization or website, and I think this is a great way to test our debating and reasoning skills. I enjoyed this debate very much.


Charity in the form of a dollar or two put into the bucket of the guy with the Santa costume not only is not obligatory, it is social coercion. The charities themselves rife with political and religious agenda. Government spending on the same common social issues is more efficient.

Over all of time, charity in the form of dollars spent is a fairly new concept. The self-aggrandizing, and shaming of those that don"t give, or don"t give as much as another, removes the altruistic nature of the act.

Charity exists with or without money. When our ancestors were hunter gathers, they showed charity to one-another. Potentially sometime in our future when money is no longer a concept, charity will exist still.


I too am very new to the site, this will be the first completed debate. I appreciate this one, and hope more will follow.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by airmax1227 1 year ago
vote by PolitcsMaster removed. 5 points for Pro, 2 points for con. RFD "k".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's initial points were superior, and his/her reasoning was strong.