Debate Rounds (3)
also in a renters agreement their is a down payment just in case of property damage or for little fixes, but you cannot add to the renters agreement after the names have been signed so if there was such a rule change would the new mane have to put a down payment on the house? or pay for a house inspection because they are now in a legal contract?
these are all just question for the first round debate but if this is maybe going to happen there is many thing that would be very confusing for the land owners and renters and some difficult problems. thank you and you can answer all these questions and hopefully some more so I may debate this topic further
Our concern is adding an 18 year or older child who is basically relying on their parents for financial support to the lease is simply wrong. We profess just as with health care, children should be allowed to stay off the lease until they reach the age of 26. Just like parents can keep their children on their health care until they turn 26 years of age. We have witness families suffer fiscal issues, fall behind on their rent and every adult 18 years and over has the failure to pay rent on their credit, even if the children (18-26) are technically just living with mom and dad.
I would suspect this concern does not apply to the purchase of a home, given the many factors you just stated.
However, forcing families to add college enrolled children to their lease in our opinion has the potential to damage the credit of many low to moderate income families who rent at a higher than most other families.
Please stay connected. Our next debate will discuss housing and discrimination, should Realtors who knowingly discriminate and or found to have done so be prevented from every working as a Realtor?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|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:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate never really got off the ground. Incidentally, I didn't find Pro's statements regarding the lease compelling--he seems to not understand that, though children can be on their parents insurance, they *have to be put on the insurance*--he didn't differentiate how that would be different from *putting them on the lease*. He seems to think that if the parents don't pay rent, the *adult* children shouldn't have to suffer any consequences for the failure to pay rent--and I think he'd rather need a lot more argumentation to justify that.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.