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

The Elton John AIDS Foundation should be forced to close

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 54685
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




It wasn't Mary's fault she was plain looking and lacked the feminine curves that most other young women have. It was also unfortunate that she was flat-chested, but she didn't help herself by keeping her hair short, by dressing in trousers rather than skirts and by not wearing any make-up.

Even so, that does not in any way excuse the actions of the homosexual man who saw her walking past the window of the gay bar he was in and, mistaking her for a teenage boy, went out and dragged her into a shop doorway where he anally raped her, infecting her with the HIV/AIDS virus in the process.

When they found out Mary had HIV/AIDS all her friends and family disowned her and her colleagues refused to work with her so her boss had no choice but to give her the sack. Unable to pay her rent and with nobody to turn to for help, Mary soon found herself living on the streets of New York City in America.

One day Mary was walking down New York High Street when she passed the Elton John AIDS Foundation office, so she knocked at the door and asked the man who answered it if Sir Elton could possibly spare enough money to buy a cup of tea for a poor, destitute AIDS victim.

"Are you a gay man?" screeched the man who answered the door, "Are you a gay man, you scrounging bitch? No, I don't think you are, are you? So fvck off and never darken our doorway again you filthy crackwhore". And with that he slammed the door in Mary's face.

It was then she noticed the sign which read: "The Elton John AIDS Foundation - enabling dozens of community organizations throughout the U.S., Caribbean, and Latin America to take on innovative work for gay men's health." [1]

So, dejected, Mary returned to the street to search for half-eaten hamburgers and discarded chicken bones.

However, if she was a gay man with AIDS, rather than a heterosexual woman with AIDS, she would be living on Easy Street courtesy of the largesse of Sir Elton John.

This doesn't seem right to me. It's no longer the case that only gay men get AIDS - they have now spread this incurable disease to the rest of the population, with sex workers and intravenous drug users being most at risk.

Nobody would allow a charity that refused to help AIDS victims if they were black to continue operating so why allow the Elton John AIDS Foundation to continue discriminating against women and heterosexual men?

It should be closed forthwith, along with any other misogynist, heterophobic charities.

Thank you.


Disclaimer: Since Sir Elton John's financial resources are such that he can afford much better lawyers than me, please be advised that this debate is just for fun and none of the events described hereinabove actually took place.


First off, I'd like to convey my admiration of my opponent's track record. Over 400 debates. That's just awesome. That shows some serious commitment to the site.

I'd like to open my arguments with a quick comparison.

Often, colleges receive donations from people or organizations. One stipulation that comes with that donation is something must be built or named in their honor, or something to that effect. So if I give a million dollars to a college, but tell them they must build a half million dollar statue of me in the center of their campus, I've effectively given only 500 million to the university. This practice irritates some people, but they can still accept that it is still preferable in terms of assisting the campus in providing students a good education.

Now if we look at the Elton John Foundation, we can understand that some people may not like that they limit their assistance to a specific group of people, but we should still be able to see that it's preferable to them not providing any service at all.

I didn't realize this until after typing the argument above, but the Elton John Foundation does not exclusively service gay men, rather they provide grants to various groups fighting AIDS[1]. My opponent's main argument is thus not factually correct.

"EJAF is one of the world’s largest HIV grant-makers. With offices in New York and London, EJAF has raised more than $300 million for the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS since its inception in 1992. In the Americas, we invest approximately $7 million in more than 120 organizations every year, with half of this focused on the Southern U.S. and the Caribbean."[1]

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank MyDinosaurHands for accepting this debate and also thank him for his kind words regarding my prolific exploits on this site. I would remind him, however, that it is quality, not quantity, that counts!

In response to my opponent's rebuttals I should like to point out that there are plenty of decent, non-discriminatory charities that help people with AIDS regardless of their sexual orientation or gender. When Elton John's outfit gets closed down for being discriminatory people will simply give their money to other AIDS charities instead.

And it is true that Elton John's charity discriminates against women and heterosexual men, it just is blatantly obvious, that's all.

Put it this way, if you were a racist homophobe who wanted to operate a charity that did not benefit black people or homosexual men you wouldn't declare: "we are dedicated to helping all those in need except nig-nogs and queers" would you? No, you'd state: "we are dedicated to helping all white heterosexuals in need". Still, not ideal, but better.

Similarly, Elton John's charity could have written: "(we support) innovative work for everybody's health except bitches and straight guys" but that would look like blatant discrimination, so instead they wrote "(we support) innovative work for gay men's health".

Obviously, just as some aid intended for the starving in Africa ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians, some money Elton John's charity intended for gay men actually ended up helping women and heterosexual men with AIDS instead. But that doesn't mean the Elton John AIDS Foundation isn't discriminatory and shouldn't be closed down.

Thank you.


Assuming the Elton John Foundation was discriminatory in its practices, it still positively affects the world than it would if it were forced to close. Under what my opponent asserts, the Elton John Foundation helps only gay HIV/AIDS victims. To understand why this isn't a problem, consider the following:

Let's put this down into simplified numbers. Let's say the Elton John Foundation can only help 10 people with AIDS. They will only help gay men.

Another foundation will help anyone, but they too can only service 10.

Then we've got 20 people seeking help. 10 are gay men, 10 are not. Thanks to the presence of the Elton John Foundation, there are more slots available for people in the other foundation who will help anyone.

Every AIDS assistance program that is closed directly results in less people having care. Charities and programs can only assist so many.

My opponent has reasserted his claim of Elton John's foundation practicing discrimination. He has provided no evidence to support his claim. If you are not convinced by my above argument, then I encourage you to follow the link I posted in my previous round, and investigate the Elton John Foundation yourself.

Thanks for reading. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
I don't wanna challenge, but it seems like, if that aspect of the foundation is true, then it should simply accept all persons with HIV rather than just gay people with HIV. Closing it down just reduces the total amount of people getting help, even if they are discriminating, without actually helping any women or straight men at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years 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 took this very seriously, which always makes brian_eggleston's debates funnier. Sourcing, S&G, and Conduct were equal enough. As to arguments, Con demonstrated that it was better to have a group helping than to not have a group helping, and demonstrated his point through his hypothetical, and so wins despite having the less-amusing argument. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.