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

We have a duty to give to charities

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 8/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 78784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Second try, let us see how one can fare with that one.

I would like to argue for the duty to give to charities.

Some definitions:
- duty: something that is immoral not to do;
- morality: I would like to take the definition that something bringing more overall good than bad into the world is moral, something bringing more overall bad than good is immoral;
- definitions of good and bad are debatable, but I would like to set that things such as pain, sufferings and death are considered bad;
- charity: an organization dedicated to alleviating the sufferings of all or a certain category of people.

Debate plan would be:
1) acceptance
2) Pro case / Con rebuttals & case
3) Pro defence & rebuttals / Con rebuttals & defence
4) Pro closing statement / Con closing statement

Looking forward to this debate.


People will probably think I am heartless for negating this case, but I believe giving to charity could make our society ultimately spoiled. My philosophy is based Darwinian Capitalism.
Darwinism-stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce
Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
I believe that in order for our society to be prosperous we need to motivate the young to compete with each other. In my case, I will try to prove this with historic examples and how competition proves useful. I will also try prove that my opponent's theories are good short-term but bad long-term.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate.

According to my above definitions, if given two paths of action, it is immoral to take the path that will lead to more overall sufferings in the world. With this in mind, if we have the choice to alleviate some sufferings without sacrificing something of comparable value (for instance, without developing equivalent sufferings on another person or on one own self), it is immoral not to do so.

Everyday, we spend money on commodities and leisures, such as fancy clothes, concerts, movies and food, money that could be spent relieving people from sufferings. Considering the conclusion of the previous paragraph, it is our duty, if we have the choice between spending 10 dollars on a movie or giving those same 10 dollars to a relief fund for the victims of the Nepal earthquake, to give the money to the charity, since our enjoyment of the movie does arguably not equal the benefits (food, shelter, medical aid...) that 10 dollars can bring to the Nepali survivors.

It might be argued that some charities do not manage the money they receive in the most efficient way, and that a lot of this money is lost. My point, however, is not that we have a duty to give to ALL charities, but to those which are the most efficient at relieving sufferings. This reasoning implies not only that one should give to charity A that manages its money most efficiently than charity B if this alleviates more hardships, but also that one should give to charity C that manages its money poorly, if the money spent to charity C will be used to generate more relief than when spent for leisures or unnecessary commodities.
For instance, if charity C only gives 10% of its collected money to the Nepal earthquake relief fund and the rest as salary to its (greedy) management board, one has a duty to chose not to spend money on two movie tickets and give the money saved (let us say 15 dollars) to charity C, which will translate into 1.5 dollars, the price of a meal in Nepal, spent to feed one survivor of the earthquake (only, of course, if one considers that the satisfaction of an earthquake survivor being fed is greater than that of two people going to see a movie).

I now leave the floor to my opponent.


Assassin801x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent failed to refute my arguments, which then still hold.


Assassin801x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent didn't manage to refute my arguments, nor did he expose the arguments he said he would. Vote PRO.


Assassin801x forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
No your arguments don't hold. He probably had more important things to do. Did you empty your wallet instead of telling others to do it?
Posted by robertacollier 2 years ago
"We" have a duty? Speak for yourself.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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