The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.
Hello. Today I propose the topic that The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.
I will be arguing in favor of this topic, so as the contender you must refute my claims and defend the foundation.
Round Structure will be as follows:
Round 1: Acceptance, make a quick post stating you accept the debate.
Round 2: Present case (Pro); Present case and offer first rebuttal (Con).
Round 3: Present Rebuttal and defend self (Both).
Round 4: Present 2nd Rebuttal and defend self, present voting issues (Both).
I look forward to a really good debate between myself and my opponent.
PM me or comment if you have any questions or concerns prior to accepting the round.
I will begin this debate by presenting my case, then after my opponent will reply with his own case and his rebuttal.
As the Pro, I will argue that we should destroy the Susan G. Komen Foundation. My basis for my reasons is that the foundation is nothing but an elitist, selfish "non-profit" organization. Instead of "feeding the troll" and keeping them alive, we should take down their foundation and actually contribute towards breast cancer research.
1. My first argument will be that the Susan G. Komen Foundation claims to be a non-profit organization that fights "for the cure", but this is not true.
Looking at SGK's finance reports from 2010 , you can see that they only contribute ~20% ($75 million out of $400 million)of their funds to actual cancer research. This is generous compared to what that pay now! Recently, they have dropped that number to 15%, meaning they pay more in fundraising costs and personal pay checks then they do "for the cure" 
40% of their donations go to public education (advertising). Now, I'm all for creating public awareness for a serious problem in the world, but by now the majority of people know about the risks of breast cancer, and most women are completely aware of the measures they should take to check themselves and prevent cancer. The majority of their advertising budget goes towards "pink-washing", which I will explain later.
The other 40% comprises of fundraising costs and their own pay checks. Yes, a non-profit organization is working for profit. The Founder and previous CEO has since given up her position, and instead takes a special position of "Founder and Chair of Global Strategy" . Tax documents reveal that she now makes $684,000 a year . Previously, and currently for the new CEO, she made $400,000-$450,000 a year .
As you can see, the SGK Foundation is obviously not "non-profit", with the CEO's making nearly 3/4 of a million dollars each year, and not really focusing on fighting "for the cure" because they spend less on cancer research than they do on the costs to fundraise the money going to the cause.
2. My second argument will be that the SGK Foundation has repeatedly denied donations and cut off funding to medical centers.
Susan G. Komen, being only concerned with personal profits and their image, has denied donations from corporations they deemed unfit. The first I will discuss is PornHub. Last October, PornHub offered to donate $.01 for every 30 views on a video tagged in the "boob" category . But, SGK feared this would hurt their image, and turned down more than $25,000 of donations by PornHub. This is not the first example however. SGK has also cut ties with PlannedParenthood, who offers mammograms and examinations for woman fearing they have breast cancer. SGK funded PP for a while until the big upset by the Republicans over abortion, and after cut ties with them, leaving PP standing alone . Why would a Foundation who says they want to fight "for the cure" cut funding to clinics where treatment and preventive exams are done? Because they feared some of their personal pay checks would go down due to people stopping funding.
3. Susan G. Komen has sued 100s of small organizations fighting to cure multiple kinds of cancer over "trademark issues".
To present my argument, I will show this excerpt from Huffington Post explaining multiple situations of when Susan G. Komen has taken legal action against small local charities, who had nowhere near enough money to pay for big-shot lawyers like SGK had:
As you can see, SGK constantly takes legal action to protect their "trademark", forcing people to spend money on "charity turf-war" rather than contributing to the raising of money for cancer research.
For these reasons and more, I strongly urge you to vote Pro, thus voting to end the reigns of "non-profit" charities that only care about themselves and not the causes that they say they are fighting for. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Hunter.a forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited last round, therefore I will have to point out that all of my points still stand undefeated while he has zero that stand. Due to this, I will reiterate my points.
My first argument was about the SGK's use of funds. As I showed with evidence , , , and , less than 20% of SGK's proceeds go to actual cancer research while 40% go to unnecessary awareness and another 40% go to the personal bank accounts of their CEOs.
My second argument showed the elitist attitudes of SGK. They care more about profits (to pay for their paychecks) rather than taking any donations they can get . Not only that, they cut ties with an organization that helps women diagnose and treat breast cancer due to the conflict between Conservatives and the Pro-Choice supporters of Planned Parenthood .
My 3rd argument was proof that SGK only cares about themselves. They go out of their way to protect their "trademark" by suing other small charities that have no way of protecting themselves .
For these reasons and more, I stongly urge you to vote Pro. I will still give my opponent a chance to rebuttal these arguments in the next speech.
Hunter.a forfeited this round.
Again, my opponent forfeited the round. He is not taking this very seriously. All of my points still stand and thus I urge you all to vote Pro. Thanks again! Don't allow my opponent to make any new arguments in the final speech if he so decides to participate.
Hunter.a forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|