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

The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.

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: 10/14/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 38901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




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 accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


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 [1], 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" [2]
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" [3]. Tax documents reveal that she now makes $684,000 a year [4]. Previously, and currently for the new CEO, she made $400,000-$450,000 a year [3].
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 [5]. 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 [3]. 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:

So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure--and many of the organizations are too small and under funded to hold their ground.
"It happened to my family," said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. "They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own 'cure' in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause."
Donovan's sister, Mary Ann Tighe, said the Komen foundation sent her a letter asking her to stop using the phrase "for a cure" in their title and to never use the color pink in conjunction with their fundraising. What bothered her most about the whole ordeal, she said, was that Komen forced her to spend money and time on legal fees and proceedings instead of raising funds for cancer.
"We were certainly taken aback by it," she told HuffPost. "We have partners running these kite events around the country. What if one of them uses, say, magenta? Is that pink? I mean, where are we going with this? We just want to raise money for cancer. What we don't want is to have our energy misplaced by having our charity partners trying to police the good work that we're doing."
Sue Prom, who started a small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer called "Mush for the Cure" in Grand Marais, Minn., said she was shocked to hear from Komen's lawyers this summer asking that she change the name of her event or face legal proceedings.
"I had to call the trademark helpline, because I had no idea what I was doing," said Prom, who runs the annual sled race with her husband and friend. "We pay for the expenses out of our pockets, and we've never personally made a dime from it. We have t-shirts, sweatshirts, domain names, posters, stationery, all with 'Mush for the Cure' on it. What do we do with all the materials now? How are we gonna defend ourselves? We're not like Komen."[6]

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.

Sources used:


Hunter.a forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


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 [1], [2], [3], and [4], 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 [5]. 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 [3].

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 [6].

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.
Debate Round No. 3


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.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by oppai_lover666 3 years ago
I would like to remind Con (@hunter.a) that he only has ~3 hours left to post his case and rebuttal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF