Well, there are tons different kinds of charities for tons of different causes. While almost all are good intentioned, some of the causes may actually conflict. That being said, I think that you have to choose the ones that are closest to your heart. Not to say that you shouldn't give to any charities you can't identify with, just that you should be aware of support the ones that you do.

Is there a debate here? That is, are you posing a question for debate?

I think the debate question is (paraphrased):
Are some charities more deserving than others?

I will argue that some charities are more deserving than others. I will post links to both my argument and supporting materials soon.

yes that ouwld be the debate, i think i said that in the last line but in a more confusing way lol

I cannot type a debate-worthy response today, so I'll just say: yes. Some are more deserving...

I'll also add that I do not give to blanket charities ie: Unicef, et al. When I'm in the giving mood, I go directly to the source. For instance, donate directly to Jihrralinga Wildlife Rescue in Australia as opposed to some big Animal corporation where the money does not really make it to where it needs to be (like 10 cents on the dollar I believe was that figure I last saw)

I've been letting this simmer in the back of my mind for months now. You probably thought I'd forgotten it! No, no, not at all. I'm just slow at times.

Yes, some charities are more deserving than others.

Definitions:
When we say "charity", we mean a recipient of free donations of our money and/or goods.
By "recipient", we mean an individual or a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a cause, usually aid to a particular class or living thing.
By "free" we mean without financial or legal obligation on our part to donate, and without expectation of material gain in return.
By "deserving" we mean worthy or meriting donation

First of all, from an individual's viewpoint, of course some charities are more deserving than others. Each person has causes about which they feel more strongly than others. One person may feel that contributing to end national laboratory experimentation on animals is more worthwhile than contributing to end world illiteracy, while someone else may feel that contributing to end homelessness in his own town is more important than either. Each person has to make that decision for themselves. Most people will try to justify their subjective decisions with facts and figures to reassure themselves that they aren't being completely subjective. They are subjective, however. But the fact that it's completely subjective doesn't make it any less real for each person.

Objectively, if we believe in a particular cause, then by our donations we want to support that cause. Given that we've picked our cause on a completely subjective basis, there are likely still multiple charities devoted to that cause. At that point, we can more objectively say that the amount that a specific charity deserves donations can be determined by three factors: the proportion of the charity's funding that comes from us, how much of our donation goes to the cause, and how effective the charity is at helping the cause.

* the proportion of funding from our donation
That is to say, what percentage of the support the cause receives comes from our donation? Our giving ten dollars to Ed, the guy we meet on the street, may be the only money he has for the week. It's going to be a lot more valuable than if we donate that same ten dollars to an international aid organization which receives thousands of like donations from others every day.

* how much of our donation benefits the cause
Charity organizations have overhead: they need to pay for office space, web hosting, stipends for volunteer labor, printing costs for fliers, et cetera. Most of that sort of stuff is generally lumped under "administration". Most of whatever is left goes to the charity's actual cause. Again, donating directly to an individual is going to have the least amount taken off as overhead. On the surface, you might also think that smaller charity organizations would thus be better at this, as they should have smaller administrative costs. But there's also the wisdom of money handling to consider: sometimes smaller organizations will have volunteers who aren't as good at administration, so more of each donation is squandered unnecessarily on avoidable expenses. You can look up charity organizations and their "report cards" on various sites. Here are a few:
link and link (for charities in the US)
link (for charities in England/Wales)

* how effective the charity is
That is to say, what money is left for the cause, how effectively is it used by the charity? What have they managed to do with the donations you've made? Many people use this issue as an argument for not giving to individuals, as "they can't be trusted to handle the money properly". link. However, charity organizations can be evaluated relative to each other. Have they trained one person to fish, or have they fed 100 people fish for a day? Are they teaching sex education, or are they handing out condoms? Did they provide Christmas cards to people, or did they provide shelter for people on Christmas eve? Most charity organizations provide reports on what they've achieved for the past year. For example, World for World organization provides link. You can compare these and determine which have been using the donations they've received most effectively, based on what you think the need is. For example, if you want to donate to a pet shelter organization, knowing how many animals were spayed/neutered and how many were relocated to new homes is important information in your decision as to which charity is more deserving.

So, even with the subjective decision as to which cause is most deserving, there are ways in which a given charity can be more or less deserving than another.

Edited to add emphasis and correct an egregious typographical error...

Whoa - is no one going to debate me on this?

I would, but I agree.

I would like to add that I like to do something myself for the causes that I support.
I collect for five different charity's every year. It's only one night work a night and charity's need collectors. I can give 50 cents or an euro, or I raise a couple of hunderd euro.
That's probably also the reason why I almost always give to collectors that come at the door: I know how dissapointing it is when someone does not give. I usually just think: even a little bit will help, if everyone gives 50 cent that would still amount to a lot of money.

I'm a sucker for people going door-to-door in general: I myself did "direct sales" (as they call it) for a while, and I know how completely soul-crushing it is to go door-to-door for anything (fundraiser, selling a product, or charity collection).

That said, I think that there are obvious arguments "con", and if no one else will put any forward, I will soon.

just give me till sunday before you do harold lol i waited 7 months for your response to this :P

I'm just a tease, I guess. I'm delighted to see what you have to retort...uh, counter.

So...shall I go ahead and debate myself, then?

What is the debate here? Should we give to charity or are some charities more deserving?

See, I will give to certain charities. I refuse to give into 'charity-muggers', the ones with clipboards who try and sign you up to giving from a direct debit account, mostly because of their blanket-net practice, and their targeting of students, who can't afford it and are guilted into signing up.

I support local charities and organisations ONLY if I know those collecting, because of a huge number of door-to-door charity scams. Actually, if I can find the link about a new Irish programme highlighting these scams, I'll post it. It shows how groups rob clothes banks and charity bags and take them to sell on in other countries, especially in the Balkans.

As for the 'Big Issue'- no, just no. The majority of those selling the Big Issue are scam artists that have on occasion tried to charge me up to and over 5 euro. It seems to be a big scam involving a certain group, who have tried to scam my workplace as well. So no.

Students collecting for charity, yes, I'll donate, mostly because the charities they are collecting for are doing practical, good work.

I work for a voluntary organisation(volunteer), and I know how difficult it can be to raise funds. After seeing some of the practices involved, I can honestly say I would never resort to those tactics to gain help. We barely survive on a small grant.

Harold, street begging can be quite lucrative. If you have a guitar, well, you can make more than I do after six-seven hours of work (and I'm above minimum wage!)

dazl, those sound like more arguments supporting the position that "Some charities ARE more deserving than others." Correct?

Well, yes...stop confusing me!

On an aside, yesterday I had two men come into my workplace with pockets of change, asking to exchange them for notes. Both of them beg on the main street of Cork, I've seen them. We exchanged over €100 worth of change each!

So yes, some charities are more deserving, I guess...