The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,657 times Debate No: 6305
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

Imagine you are in a restaurant and you order cream of mushroom soup for starters, but when it arrives it turns out to be utterly tasteless so you send it back to the kitchen. Now, the reason your soup lacks flavour is that the restaurant has run out of salt. However, the chef, not wanting to disappoint a valuable customer, decides to improvise, and masturbates into your soup in order to add a salty flavour. The only trouble is, the chef has AIDS, which you subsequently contract as a result of consuming the semen-enriched soup.

But you don't despair. You have heard of a charity that helps victims of AIDS called GMFA and you go to see them.

http://www.gmfa.org.uk...

Unfortunately, all your hopes are dashed when they tell you that they are biased against normal men and explain that before they can help you, they need to see your gay ID (keys to a Jeep Wrangler, membership card from the Cristiano Ronaldo Fan Club, receipt for a caffe latte from Starbucks, etc.) At this point, you are forced to admit that you are straight and on hearing this, the GMFA counsellor spits in your face and says:

"Your sort make me sick to the pit of my stomach. What with your kissing girls and watching motor racing on TV. As far as I'm concerned, if you are straight you deserve to die of AIDS. Now get out of here, you disgusting piece of heterosexual filth."

In my opinion, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong and aid organisations such as GMFA should be have their status as registered charities revoked.

Thank you.
Danielle

Pro

Brian! We meet again...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Suppose your best mate was an airy-fairy bloke who got duped into marrying an arsefaced wench named Mary. Feeling sorry for the lad, you and your chums decided to throw him one hell of a bachelor party for which you wished to hire only the very best and most beautiful exotic dancers. When calling the agency from which they would derive, you specified that this was a bachelor party for your heterosexual pal and wished for entertainers who were extremely sexy and incredibly talented individuals. The manager responded with "Alright, then" and told you he'd be sending his very best strippers, Jamie and Pat.

Imagine your surprise (and horror) when Jamie and Pat showed up and began removing their shirts and knickers only to reveal two sets of hairy, lumpy balls, and enough chest and pubic hair to weave a large fur carpet. Jesus bloody Christ -- the agency had sent two MEN to dance at this bachelor party, though the name of the agency you hired them from was called Girls Girls Girls. In an outcry of "False advertising!" none of your friends hesitated to pick up the phone and complain to the deranged manager.

The logic behind their complaint, you see, is that they intended to hire FEMALE strippers and thus male strippers would simply not suffice to their liking. Applying this theory to charities, sure it may seem unreasonable that charities pick and choose who to help. However let us not forget that the basis of any charitable organization, in addition to volunteer work, is MONEY. People choose to donate to certain causes based on a particular premise. For instance, animal lovers donate to charities aimed at protecting wildlife or even PETA. Some feel it is important to contribute to the poor and homeless, while others think it's imperative to remember struggling families and children in other parts of the world. Whose right is it to apply OTHER'S money to suit your own needs?

Those who donated to the GMFA organization did so with the intention of helping homosexuals who had contracted the virus. Perhaps they had done so because they themselves are gay and feel that their bretheran are continuously ignored or harassed in society. Maybe some feel that a lack of sex education regarding homosexual conduct is what contributes to such a large quantity of gay men contracting the disease. Perhaps they have lost a lover, friend or family member who was gay and who could not seek assistance BECAUSE of their orientation. Or maybe they simply wanted to help fund the cause.

Similarly, if I donated to specifically help children in Darfur, I might be a little irked to learn that my money was actually being sent to help a family in Wisconsin. Sure charity is charity, but regardless, it is one's right to donate to a specific cause with a certain premise. Morally, the charity must do everything in their power to protect and fulfill that expectation.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

Yuletide Greetings!

So, theLwerd is back? Many a long day have I dreamed of exacting my revenge for the previous defeat I suffered at her hands and now I have my chance! So, with no further ado, let's cut to the chase:

A few years ago, a man was injured in a car accident just outside a remote and forgotten village in America called New Jersey and the consultant on duty at the local hospital, a certain Dr. House, fished an organ donor card out of his wallet.

"How kind, how thoughtful" he said to his colleague, Dr. Cuddy, as he unplugged the life support machine and reached for his scalpel "his tonsils could save the life that new patient in the intensive care unit, what's his name again?"

"Nelson Mandela" she replied, "but we can't perform a tonsils transplant using this guy because he has scrawled ‘whites only' across his donors card."

Sounds like an unlikely story? Well, in fact it's based on an actual event. People can be charitable with money, organs, time, or whatever, and for all sorts of causes, regardless of generally accepted morals and ethics. But the question is - should the state recognise and support them all by registering them as charities?

For example, you can raise money for cancer research by going trekking in Peru.

http://www.mariecurie.org.uk...

What happens here is, you go around all your friends and family and ask them to sponsor your trip. Once the airfares, accommodation, etc. has been paid for, anything left will go to Marie Curie, which is a registered charity. What is actually happening here, of course, is that your friends and relatives are paying for you to go on vacation in the knowledge that anything left over will go to a good cause.

As it happens, this gave me a good idea and I asked my friends and family to donate money to charity by sponsoring me to go on a pub-crawl. I explained that after I had paid for the drinks for me and the lads, I would put the change in the charity box behind the bar. However, their responses were not generous. Even though I explained it was for the lifeboats, they refused to hand over any cash and said they would prefer to give to a registered charity instead.

The point is, only certain good causes deserve to be registered charities. Many people give to Hamas because of the good work they do for oppressed people in Palestine. However, it is not a registered charity because some of the money is spent on weapons.

Also, bigoted, racist thugs donate money to the British National Party to fund the nefarious activities of their fascist boot-boys in deprived inner-city areas but it is not a registered charity because it openly discriminates against foreigners.

So, while people should be free to give to heterophobic organisations such as GMFA, the Government should not legitimise their discriminatory policies by registering them as a charity.

Thank you.
Danielle

Pro

I too have imagined the day in which I might actually be defeated based not upon debate.org vote bombs, sore losers, sensitive teenagers whose feelings I've hurt, a flawed scoring system or awarded points, but rather on the actual performance and merit of my opponent's claims. Fortunately today will not be that day.

You see, Brian attempts to show why it is unfair that some charities are considered legitimate or recognized by the government whereas others are not. To illustrate this point, he describes an organ donating situation, which - whether it's based on true events or not - deals with one or two individuals and their particular beliefs/situation. It has nothing to do with charities as an entity but rather the charity of one person to another regarding their own body parts and moral values.

The problem with this example (and his later examples regarding friends of his starting a "charity" to let him travel or drink at the pub for free) is that those groups do not fit the established guidelines of what the government deems necessary in order to consider an organization a legitimate charity. Legitimate, in this case, means that the government will provide tax (and other) benefits from the State. According to the Man, a legitimate charity must:

� Be for PUBLIC benefit, NOT private gain
� Be a not-for-profit organization
� Can only trade if it is *directly connected to its charitable purpose* i.e. mission statement
� Not over-chare
� Make its work and benefits widely available.

* Note: Some organizations are not charitable, as the work only benefits their members; for example, self-help
groups and cooperatives. *

� Campaign only if relevant to its objects and NOT in a political way [1]

Moreover, to be eligible for the Combined Federal Campaign, charities must meet at least 10 accountability standards found here --> [2].

So you see, the GMFA must have achieved these guidelines (which PROs proposed organizations never would) and others in order to be considered. Hamas, as my opponent pointed out, does not fit the bill because of how some donated money is in fact spent on weapons. That does not comply with the ideology that a legit charity must campaign only for relevant ideas to their mission statement and NOT in a political way. Moreover, his assertion about the donations to the BNP is based on an over-statement and manipulation of facts/ideas. That's like saying the American Cancer Society is bad because they don't donate money to cancer research or patients in Canada. It's not discriminatory if helping Americans is part of the actual mission.

PRO concludes with, "So, while people should be free to give to heterophobic organisations such as GMFA, the Government should not legitimise their discriminatory policies by registering them as a charity." In other words, he feels that charitable work should be all-inclusive if it is to be considered legit or moral. That flawed ideology would mean that any original mission statement would have absolutely no value. For instance, he would consider a charity aimed at helping battered women specifically to be biased in the sense that it would not necessarily help battered men. Well, in that case I could say that a charity aimed at helping those with prostate cancer is biased in that it wouldn't be open to helping women or those without prostates. Sounds like a bonkers opposition, right?

The point is, there are dozens of AIDS charities and organizations that are ready and willing to help heterosexuals. Additionally, even if there weren't, PRO or anyone else could start their own charity with their individual mission statement in mind (for example, even one exclusive to heterosexuals). Then, if it meets the standards associated with government recognized charities - and only then - the new organization could be established and considered legit. However to propose that charities with exclusive goals ignore their primary reason for inception on the basis that they have pre-requisite conditions to receive help is ludicrous. That's like saying I should be able to get money from charities who help the impoverished because I am a poor college student who probably has less money than those receiving aid. It simply doesn't add up as there are certain factors to consider.

And by the way, when government starts recognizing the discrepancies of say legal/marriage laws between hetero and homosexuals, maybe THEN they can worry about the discrepancies of the private donation sector. Until then, it is wrong to ignore the legitimacy of upstanding charities aimed at helping people of a specific situation if it complys with the present standards of government-recognized legitimacy. The standards in place ensure that overt or unwarranted discrimination is intolerable. Thus, this is a non-issue.

[1] http://www.voluntaryworks.org.uk...
[2] http://www.charitablechoices.org...
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Oh I'm looking forward to it...
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry, pressed the wrong button with Pro and Con...that must be the reason I'm losing...people are voting for theLwerd by mistake!

Thank you very much, nonetheless, to KRFournier for those kind comments.

And theLwerd...this isn't the end...I will get my revenge!
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Wow, KRF, it's refreshing to get some type of relevant and detailed feedback :)
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - TIE - Such nice people.

Spelling and grammar - TIE - No surprise given the writing reputation of these two.

Convincing Argument - PRO - Pro did an excellent job reducing Con's position to absurdity. Charities must target narrow demographics by necessity else all charities should be for all people.

Reliable Sources - PRO - Pro's sources carried more weight in her arguments.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Lol. I actually live in New Jersey now. I'm glad to see I was semi-successful with my whole English bit. When I was a child I'd go to Disney World and pretend to be a foreigner (mainly British). Hmm. A weird one, I was.

Anyway I noticed that we both made the mistake of arguing our opponent's POV. I should have been CON and you should have been PRO. But I think people will understand our intentions and vote accordingly. And even if they don't, well, I couldn't care less. I look forward to our next debate! Mwahaha.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Lol theLwerd...have you been spending your time in England since you've been away? I tried to effect an American accent in some recent debates but I wasn't successful. It reads as if you were brought up in Jersey, not, er...New Jersey!
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I don't mind. I've got thick skin :P
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
But I can't in good faith root against theLwerd - what to do?
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Oh but so am I :)
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Brian is back telling it like he sees it. YES!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 8 years ago
LaSalle
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by johnnyjohnsmithsmith 8 years ago
johnnyjohnsmithsmith
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07