Payday lending Services should be banned
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is simply for clarification/acceptance debate starts with me on round 2
This topic isn't as hard as it seems btw it's hard to make a straight up case though because the evidence over it is a bit yeah. Kind of all over the place but the topic itself isn't hard to comprehend it's also not purely just economical. Other areas are big in this topic as well. Trust me I am not a economics guy but this topic I can do.
What is payday lending= A payday loan (also called a payday advance, salary loan, payroll loan, small dollar loan, short term or cash advance loan) is a small, short-term unsecured loan, "regardless of whether repayment of loans is linked to a borrower's payday."
Pro's burden= Prove that pay day lending should be banned, I don't have to provide a method for banning this or provide a way of enforcing a ban just that the method itself should be banned. (I can also provide alternatives to this) Should is a key word in this debate
Con's burden= Prove that pay day lending shouldn't be banned. Also of course effectively address reasons provided by the pro of why it should be banned an maybe address the alternatives pro will may present as well.
1.Introduction to the problem of pay day loans.
Payday loans are small, short-term loans that are easily obtained because the lender rarely checks the borrower"s credit. Simply write a post-dated check for the amount borrowed or hand over your bank account information plus a sizable fee, typically $15 per $100 borrowed, and you walk away with a few hundred dollars. When the loan comes due, generally in two weeks, you pay the money back. Or the debt can be rolled over, delaying repayment in exchange for more fees.
Here"s the problem: The hefty charges imposed by lenders make the effective interest rate exorbitant. A $15 fee to borrow $100 may look like 15% interest, for example, but it"s really equivalent to a 390% annual rate " more than 10 times the typical rate for a credit card cash advance, itself an expensive option. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts study in 2012, the average payday loan borrower took out eight loans of $375 each per year and paid a whopping $520 in interest. https://www.nerdwallet.com...
1.Questionable practices of payday lending,
"Tuesday, 17 March 2015 skynews.com ASIC has investigated 13 leading payday lenders and found some engaged in questionable lending practices.
"Same article shows that included issuing possibly unsuitable loans and setting longer-than-requested loan terms to maximize interest payments. (loans you can"t pay back)
"According to the Consumers Union (the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports) in California, Payday Loan companies can charge as much as 15% of the face value of the check. That equates to about 900% for a one-week loan and 450% for a two-week loan. To compound the issues, a Wall Street analyst indicated, "the average customer makes 11 transactions a year," compounding their problem and their financial woes.
2.Cycle of debt
"According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now receiving comments on its proposed new rules, people end up extending the initial short term loans for much longer periods, and paying extra fees and high interest rates over long periods of time. Many times the consumers can't ever get out of that initial debt, bureau officials say.
"The only way payday lenders make good profit is by imposing high interest rates in order to leave the consumer in a cycle of debt in which a person spends the rest of his life attempting to pay back.
3.Explanation of this "cycle of debt"
"More than 60% of payday loans are made to borrowers who take out at least seven loans in a row -- the typical point at which the fees they pay exceed the original loan amount, according to a study of more than 12 million loans made over 12-month periods during 2011 and 2012 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
"The problem is that borrowers often can't afford to pay off the first loan, forcing them to roll over their debt and even take out a new, sometimes larger loan so they can pay off the original debt. The CFPB found that more than 80% of all payday loans are rolled over or renewed within two weeks.
"Many payday borrowers live on fixed monthly incomes, such as retirees or disabled Americans receiving Social Security disability benefits. Of those payday borrowers receiving monthly payments, the study found that one out of five borrowed money every single month of the year. http://money.cnn.com...
Now some alternatives to this method of pay day lending
1. Faith based organizations provide an alternative
"The Washington Post shows that such programs offer very low interest rates near zero in order to achieve the goal of helping the people in need of loans. The biggest difference is that those programs make people financially stable rather than stack up their debt.
"The Jubilee Assistance Fund has helped parishioners of the United Methodist Church secure 14 loans that ranged from $500 to $8,800, according to Carol Mathis, CEO of the Virginia United Methodist Credit Union. Churches offer funds as collateral so that borrowers can qualify for a loan through the credit union. One couple used the fund to take out a loan of about $3,000 at an annual interest rate of about 6 percent and repaid the advance in about a year, earlier than promised.
2. Installment loans
"Traditional installment loans are the best alternative to payday loans for consumers because they provide consumers a clear roadmap out of debt through manageable equal monthly payments that pay off both principal and interest," says Karen Klugh, a spokeswoman for the American Financial Services Association, an industry group. She says consumer finance companies determine the borrower"s ability to pay and report the debt repayment to the major credit-rating companies, which can help the borrower build a good credit score.
Installment loans also give you much more time to pay back the debt, says James Chilton, founder and chief executive of the Society for Financial Awareness, a nonprofit group focused on financial literacy. This financing also generally lets you borrow more and at significantly lower rates than payday loans. https://www.nerdwallet.com...
3. Online alternatives
Online alternatives: Many websites offer less expensive borrowing options. There"s LendUp, which provides lower-cost installment loans, and Activehours, which pays hourly wage earners the same day they work. There are also peer-to-peer lending websites such as Prosper and LendingClub, which Turner says offer better choices compared with payday loans.https://www.nerdwallet.com...
Conclusion: Any alternative is better to pay day lending. It's even better to borrw from a friend then from payday lending.
4. This practice is morally wrong
Basicully this method doesn't just hurt economically but it's morally wrong and as I stated in my intro a lot of the pay day lenders are greedy. Many payday borrowers live on fixed monthly incomes, such as retirees or disabled Americans receiving Social Security disability benefits. Of those payday borrowers receiving monthly payments, the study found that one out of five borrowed money every single month of the year.
"These kinds of stories are heartbreaking and they are happening all across the country," Cordray said in a prepared statement. "They demand that we pay serious attention to the human consequences of the payday loan market." http://money.cnn.com...
This quote says it all. A lot of people who actually us pay day lending are super desperate or poor. The reason not a lot of people really know about pay day lending it seems is because this process is only utilized by the desperate or people who don't know better. This practice is morally wrong and the individuals behind it have bad morals.
1. Rollovers (taking out a new payday loan to pay off the last one) are banned.
2. Consumers are limited to a single advance from a single lender of $500 at a time.
3. Interest rates cannot exceed 10 percent of the loan's face value.
4. Implement a national database to ensure compliance with (1) and (2).
This counterplan is mutually exclusive with the resolution because you cannot simultaneous ban something and impose regulations on how it should be done. For the rest of this debate, I will argue that regulating payday loans is better than banning them, and that payday loans should not be banned because regulating them is better.
In the world of the counterplan, consumers will be able to access the benefits of payday loans in an emergency when they can't scrape together enough cash to pay for an unexpected expense, but the ban on rollovers will encourage more responsible use of payday loans and prevent endless debt cycles.
DISADVANTAGE - BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
Businesses dislike regulation, because too much government regulation is bad for economic growth and recovery. http://www.economist.com... Some level of regulation is necessary for the payday loan industry, but too much regulation will hurt business. An outright ban, as opposed to rules that limit the worst of payday lending practices, will create an environment where other sectors of business will be afraid that they will be next. A ban would prohibit reasonable payday lending practices where everything is paid off by the actual payday, without rollovers or cyclical debt. The counterplan will not hurt general business confidence because it will not exceed what is expected, since it is less stringent than an existing CFPB proposal, which would require that lenders confirm that the customer has the ability to repay the loan. http://www.consumerfinance.gov...
Business confidence is important for the economy because investors tend to be cautious if they see uncertainty or expect stricter regulation. The economy is recovering slowly https://www.washingtonpost.com..., and real unemployment is at 10%. http://www.cnbc.com.... A sudden ban on a whole sector of the economy would throw businesses into confusion and chaos. This would hurt the economy, leading to fewer jobs and more poverty, which is the root cause of the problem. This would also increase the risk of death from crime and preventable illness.
DISADVANTAGE - DESPERATION
People get payday loans if they are desperate - 85% of them for emergencies or important regular expenses such as food, clothing, and bills. http://www.pewtrusts.org...
For some people, payday loans are the only option to pay for unexpected expenses. 17 million American adults do not have access to a bank account. https://www.stlouisfed.org...
If people cannot get payday loans, some will have to cut back on basic necessities like food, clothing, and electricity, and others will turn to illegal loan sharks. The failures of Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and UN regulations against the use of mercenaries show that when there is demand for something, the market will create supply, even if it is banned. Even North Korea, the most oppressive government in the world, has a black market. http://www.reuters.com...
12 million people use payday loans each year. By eliminating the payday loans you either force them to cut back on basic necessities like food, clothing, and electricity, which is inherently dehumanizing to them, or to work with loan sharks who would charge higher rates due to the risks involved with running an illegal business, and could even use violence to collect if they are not paid.
DISADVANTAGE - AUTONOMY
It is easy for us to say that payday loans are bad if we have never had a need for one. As an upper-middle-class white American, I cannot see myself in a position where I would need a payday loan, so I must look to those who actually have been in such a position. And 12 million of those people have chosen to get payday loans. http://www.pewtrusts.org...
By eliminating access to payday loans, we would be taking away the ability of these 12 million people to determine what is best for themselves. Who can decide better what to do in such a situation than the people who are actually in that situation? Taking away the autonomy of these people would be telling them that others in a position of privilege should be able to determine what is best for them against their own wishes - which implies they are inferior on a very deep level - implying that they are unable to make decisions for themselves.
Now on to Pro's contentions:
Pro exaggerates the interest rate - the 390% annual rate would only apply if the loans were held for the whole year, without any principle being paid back, which does not usually happen. Compounding is implicit in the high interest rate used in Pro's argument. Pro says "the average payday loan borrower took out eight loans of $375 each per year and paid a whopping $520 in interest." This is an interest rate of 139%, not 390%.
Cycle of debt:
By preventing rollovers the counterplan establishes payday loans as something to be used in an emergency when consumers are unable the money they need by other means and prevents a cycle of debt.
These are great, but because the church is putting up its own assets as collateral and the rate is not high enough to financially justify the risk, they would not solve for all of the 12 million people who use payday loans. While this is useful advice for anyone reading this debate who is in need of a loan, Pro has no warrants to show that a ban on payday loans would increase the amount of faith-based lending. It actually would not, because these faith-based lenders are not operating out of the profit motive and are therefore not receptive to market effects like supply and demand.
These are harder to get in an emergency. It is difficult for people who have no credit or bad credit to get an installment loan, and while it is not impossible, it's not something that everyone will have access to. https://www.nerdwallet.com...
Installment loans are not a real improvement over payday loans. They suffer from the same rollover issues that payday loans do, and they can have APR as high as 800% - which actually is relevant because they are held long enough for compounding to have an effect. 77% of them are renewals of existing loans. Companies also use them to aggressively push insurance policies on their customers. http://business.time.com...
For Lendup, cross-apply my arguments about installment loans.
For ActiveHours, it faces many of the same problems associated with payday loans. It does cost money - and the fact that the fee is discretionary will not stop it from creating debt cycles due to guilt - after all, people do feel an obligation to tip at restaurants and bars, and tipping is what they call it. Also, it is similar enough to payday loans that it would be illegal if all payday loans were banned. http://consumerist.com...
As for the peer-to-peer lending websites, Pro does not explain how they are better, and also they might not accept people with very low credit.
The claim that it is morally wrong does not automatically mean it should be banned. Cheating on your significant other is morally wrong, but it is not illegal. The same is true of many other things, and we do not all agree on what is "morally wrong", so saying that something is immoral does not prove it should be banned.
In the world of the counterplan, consumers will be able to access the benefits of payday loans in an emergency when they can't scrape together enough cash to pay for an unexpected expense, but the ban on rollovers will encourage more responsible use of payday loans and prevent endless debt cycles.
No, no and no we are not doing this. I am not doing this stuff
Observation 1: Judge in my world the opponent"s case means this. In my world we will have this.
"Judge my counter plan is the best solution "
No I clearly stated the options you had in your burden I despise counter plans especially ones that aren"t even real. Also I didn"t set this like a Congress debate, policy debate, or LD debate so I don"t know why you"re trying to make up something and run it. I looked this up and couldn"t find it. This is a made up counter plan rather than a plan that actually exist and therefore isn"t applicable to the round since it"s not facts. Also you don"t even need this framework you have a good case, just run with it, I didn"t even set up some made up framework or unfair harsh observations for you to follow as well. Make this a fair fun debate.
So in conclusion we will instead focus on his main argument which I like a lot and am willing to debate against anything regarding his plan isn"t included in the debate.
"I will argue that regulating payday loans is better than banning them, and that payday loans should not be banned because regulating them is better."
Attack on cont 1 :DISADVANTAGE - BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
He claims that this method of banning pay day lending would hurt the "honest pay day lending services" but as I stated in my case, Tuesday, 17 March 2015 skynews.com ASIC has investigated 13 leading payday lenders and found some engaged in questionable lending practices. The majority of pay day lending services are very questionable and issue possibly unsuitable loans and setting longer-than-requested loan terms to maximize interest payments. (Loans you can"t pay back) Thus we must take a utilitarian approach and take the action that benefits the most people. MOST people are badly affected by pay day lending services since MOST are bad. Also he makes an argument that banning pay day lending would make pay day lenders lose jobs but like I stated even in my intro these pay day lenders are unethical and don"t care about the people the harm anyway. Also I provide alternatives that work with loans therefore those people can find jobs either way. Furthermore more people will benefit if this is banned and alternatives are more openly advertised. The problem is they are overshadowed in a lot of cases by pay day loans. Also I provide an alternative that are similar as my opponent points out to pay day loans in what they can provide which is installment loans.
Response to his attack on INSTALLMENT LOANS
"You can only get them with secure credit, interest rates are actually high from them". First of all I would like to state that I didn"t say installment loans are the perfect solution or way different then pay day lending. Just that they are a safer alternative. I don't have to provide a perfect alternative just that pay day lending should be banned, I am just providing some options. Installment Loans are different than Payday Loans in the sense that they can paid back slowly over time. Most of the time you will find that an Installment Loan offers a much lower APR rate on average then a payday loan Rates can start as low as at 5.99%. No hidden fees, No prepayment penalties, no rate hike or payment increases also there are fixed rates range 5.99% to 36.00% APR In the end payday loans are just short term loans with high interest rates with quick return policy. Installment loans are much better in this case, their interest rate is relatively lower and one doesn"t have to return it as soon as they have to in payday loans. https://www.prosper.com... Lastly according to http://time.com... from a time money article on the same database as his this method of installment loans is actually the best method to utilize to improve credit for 2016. His article is from 2013 about how bad these loans can be. 2013 is three years ago therefore stricter regulations and improvements have been made to installment loans since then. I would like to point out in regular debate if information determines a round or seriously clashes they look to recent data since that"s only logical and I have recent data from 2016. Also as stated in the article taking out a debt consolidation installment loan can raise your score by moving balances from the high-score-impacting revolving type of debt (credit cards) to a low-score-impacting installment loan. Again I am not suggesting this alternative has no flaws and is perfect, just that in a terrible situation this method is more beneficial than pay day loans.
Part 2 of his response: Credit is required for installment
He also makes the claim that you can only get these loans with a manageable credit which is sometimes true but every American is obligated to manage their credit. In a lot of cases the credit is the individuals fault, also it"s logical that when you are in debt and have bad credit you don"t have many opportunities however he is claiming that that payday lending is there to morally help individuals and build them back up which I will continue to show they are not specifically now in Texas in a later point I establish.
DISADVANTAGE- Desperation argument
His argument on my introduction: He tries to argue something that"s a fact on a database with his own opinion. I guess we shouldn"t be surprised by this since he tried to use made up framework in the debate round. I put this link under my intro https://www.nerdwallet.com......
He states that people get pay day loans if they are desperate; I agree they do that which is why I am trying to fail this legislation. They do that and it leads to consequences. Also he claims people"s only option is pay day lending, but those 12 million he claims will be affected can borrow from a friend, turn to pawn shops even, payroll advances, borrow from retirement accounts( again not the perfect method but at least no super high interest rates or spikes like pay day loans), bill forbearance, simply research and actually read more on loans to ensure you select the right ones. Also many websites offer less expensive borrowing options. There"s LendUp, which provides lower-cost installment loans,. There are also peer-to-peer lending websites such as Prosper and LendingClub, which offer better choices compared with payday loans.
My response to his faith based argument- A lot of churches nowadays sadly do operate for a profit http://www.cnn.com... Also again we can"t help all 12 million people but at least show them alternatives to help them. No method is 100% solable and I think it"s unfair to give me this burden. I"m mainly focusing on why we shouldn"t have pay day loans not how I will solve for all 12 million individuals. That"s my burden to prove why we shouldn"t have pay day loans.
The danger PAYDAY LENDING IN MY AREA
In fact according to http://money.cnn.com... in my own state Texas many citizens are getting arrested for pay day loans. Arresting people -- or threatening to do so -- over unpaid debts has been illegal in Texas for years now. Yet, that hasn't stopped payday lenders from using the criminal justice system to go after more than 1,500 borrowers in the state. Payday lenders are routinely turning to the courts seeking criminal charges when borrowers don't have the funds to repay their loans on time, a report from Texas Appleseed found. Such charges can lead to arrest or even jail time if the courts decide to pursue a case. "In addition to their outrageous rates and lending practices, payday loan businesses are illegally using the criminal justice system to coerce repayment from borrowers," said Ann Baddour, director of the Fair Financial Services Project at Texas Appleseed. Next there are many online alternatives that are similar to pay day lending like my opponent pointed out. The fact that this is just my location alone shows the possible other consequences to individuals.
I already stated the dangers of payday lending in general in my case but just wanted to show narrow impacts.
In conclusion my opponent doesn"t clearly state why we should actually have pay day lending services. I state why we should not. Sure I don"t provide the perfect alternative but that's not my burden. I am just proving there are ok alternatives and pay day lending should be ban.
Nowhere in my burden does it say that I cannot propose a counterplan. My burden is to "Prove that pay day lending shouldn't be banned." A good reason not to ban something is if you can regulate it effectively instead of having a complete ban. We regulate many things like automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol, and toxic chemicals that would cause a lot more harm if not regulated. There are a lot of things that if they were as unregulated as payday loans are today, they might be causing enough harm that people would be calling for them to be banned. In order to determine whether something should be banned, we should consider whether an intermediate level of regulation that eliminates the worst aspects of it is better than the extreme option of an outright ban.
If the resolution had said "Payday loans are bad" or "Payday loans do more harm than good", then a discussion of hypothetical regulation would have been inappropriate. However, the resolution says it should be banned, and whenever real policymakers decide whether to ban something, they also consider whether a partial restriction would be better. If I can prove that regulation is better than an outright ban I have disproved the resolution and met my burden.
Pro says that counterplans are unfair but does not make any warrants to show that counterplans are prohibited on DDO. They are not, unless they are specifically mentioned in the debate criteria, which they are not. Here are some examples of DDO debates with counterplans:
And examples of debates that specifically ban counterplans, which this one does not:
Pro says "Also I didn"t set this like a Congress debate, policy debate, or LD debate so I don"t know why you"re trying to make up something and run it. " However, this implicitly contradicts Pro's own criteria, which says "I debated this topic maybe 6-7 months ago and it was mostly one sided. The few who were actually against this method had an argument but it was confusing and all over the place. Also none of these people moved on to the next round in my event (congress)." The criteria implies that treating this like a Congress debate would be acceptable. I was not in any way led to expect that counterplans would be unacceptable.
Also there is no established precedent in debate that I know of that requires that counterplans have a source for the counterplan text, and Pro has not cited such a precedent. If you do a search for "counterplan" on DDO, you will find many debates where counterplans were made up by Con. And this CP is not completely made up - it is a hybrid of an existing Florida law and a proposal by the CFPB. Since the Florida law is more flexible and more politically conservative while the CFPB law is more liberal. In politics there are often compromises between liberal and conservative positions so the CP is not impossible to happen in real life. Details about the Florida law can be found here: http://www.flofr.com..., and the CFPB proposal is here: http://www.consumerfinance.gov...
Pro says it is unfair to run a counterplan - but anyone who competes is Congress, Policy, LD, or Parli debate would disagree. In fact it would be unfair to require that I support indefinitely extending the status quo where there is very little federal regulation of payday loans. Unregulated payday loans are hard to defend. Defending unregulated payday loans is unrealistic because regulation is inevitable. The Pew Research Center says that 75% of Americans think that payday loans should be more regulated, and in a democratic system the will of the people is translated into law. http://www.pewtrusts.org...
By refusing to debate against the counterplan, Pro has conceded all of it. Extend all of my claims about how the counterplan would be a better solution than an outright ban.
First, extend that the counterplan forces payday lenders to engage in more reasonable practices if they want to stay in business.
Pro concedes all of my perceptual links about business confidence. Extend all of my impacts about how economic decline leads to death, crime, and poverty. All of Pro's arguments against this disadvantage are based on payday lenders being unethical, leaving my claims about how businesses are reluctant to grow in an environment of aggressively increasing regulation untouched. This means that for the purposes of this debate we can conclude that there is a 100% probability that banning payday loans would hurt the economy.
Pro says that we should evaluate this debate in a utilitarian framework, and I accept. When evaluating different impacts in a utilitarian format we must place human life before everything else, since preservation of life is a necessary condition for existence. Since Pro has provided no evidence that banning payday loans will save lives, you should be voting for Con because Pro's advocacy costs more lives than it saves.
DESPERATION: Pro says that my claim is made up, but he provides no evidence of his own to contradict it. All of the alternatives Pro talks about - borrowing from a friend, going to a pawn shop, etc., are not always available. People who are poor tend to be friends with others who are poor, and may not always be able to borrow the money. Pawn shops require that you give an item of real value as collateral - again, not always an option. Also, they charge high interest rates similar to payday loans - an average of 10% per month. http://www.nolo.com...
Pro repeats his assertions about peer-to-peer lending sites but concedes my claim that they are not always a solution in an emergency.
AUTONOMY: Pro has completely conceded this disadvantage. Extend my argumentation about how a ban on payday loans proposed and passed by people who have no need from them dehumanizes the people who would want payday loans by implying that they are too stupid to make their own decisions. No one is forced to have a payday loan - if these people don't want payday loans they don't have to get one. Yet if they are prohibited from getting payday loans this means privileged people who don't want payday loans are deciding what is best for people who do.
INSTALLMENT LOANS: If payday loans are banned there will be higher demand for installment loans. According to the laws of economics, if demand increases, so will price. For an installment loan, the price is the interest rate. Also the unethical payday lenders would go into the installment loan business and act unethically there too, charging customers unfairly high rates which customers would have to accept because they can't get payday loans anymore.
Pro concedes that bad credit can be an obstacle to getting installment loans, which is very important because many people who take out payday loans do so because they do not have good enough credit to borrow money in other ways.
FAITH-BASED ALTERNATIVES: Pro says that some churches do operate for a profit. However, Pro concedes that the type of lending they do for high-risk individuals is not profitable, and that because it is not profitable they will not provide more of it if payday loans are banned.
Pro's argument about illegally using the criminal justice system to pursue people who have payday loans is not relevant to whether they should be banned, because of the criminal justice system in a particular area is so corrupt that they illegally arrest people who don't pay off their payday loans, why would such a corrupt system be effective in enforcing a ban on payday loans? Since Pro's criteria does not require that they provide a method of enforcement, this debate should take place in a hypothetical setting where laws function as they should.
1.He shows why regulations are applicable to the round under counter plan for no reason.
I clearly stated that I am fine with the regulation argument.
2.His argument that other debates specify they don"t want contour plans and specify they do want plans.
I actually clicked the links he provided and hose debaters specify no counter plans because they pretty much said "hey we are running a LD debate round," therefor they had to state no contour plans since in LD counter plans are used. I didn"t frame this like a LD, Policy, or congress round at all. The 2nd example the guy clearly defines "ought" which is defined in LD debate rounds and not PF or the regular debate rounds hosted on the site. Also my opponent contradicts himself by showing the debates that clearly accept plans. That's what I have been trying to tell you the whole time. That if I wanted plans in this debate I would have invited them in, and if I was running a LD debate I would have stated I don't want plans since those plans are common in that form of debate.
3.The whole congress thing
First of all advice for my viewers, don't ever go into a debate without understanding something because it can lead to a debate where 90% of the time is spent debating a counterplan. If you are unsure what type of round this is you should have asked. Now moving on to what you stated I clearly said "I debated this topic maybe 6-7 months ago and it was mostly one sided. The few who were actully against this method had an argument but it was confusing and all over the place. Also none of these people moved to the next round in my event (congress). Any individual of any age can read this and conclude that this statement doesn"t imply anything. This statement isn"t a philosophical question or a theory, there is no room for interpretation it"s simply a statement. I debated this in congress, the end.
4.How congress debate works
So in congress there"s a bunch of individuals in one room or "chamber". There is a set of topics that are up for debate on the board. The author if the bill typically speaks first and then there"s a response and the cycle repeats itself 3 times, someone defending the bill and then someone attacking it. The bill is already written and structured on how it will work.
Go here to see what the bills look like http://txfa.weebly.com...
In conclusion as you can see you can"t have a congress debate on this site. IT takes multiple individuals and multiple topics. Sure you could debate just one person but I would have to have a bill or resolution written out which usually is made up and involves properties like my opponent had for his plan clearly laid out. However obviously I didn"t do this or present any bill or resolution of any kind. Next congress is a speaking event, it cant be done online because typically a good congress debater only looks at his information if at all about 3 times for maybe a source here and there. A lot of speeches from good congress debaters are done memorized and you usually expound on a point. It's not like other events where you just read your case full of evidence only and then debate on it. Evidence isn"t heavily used in a case like we obviously used heavily in this debate, thus this obviously isn"t a congress round.
Now of course my opponent will probably try to back up his counter plan again and claim this is a congress round on the final round since he has no choice but consider what I stated, and hey I have actually debated this event and understand how it works. Lastly I realize this contour plan is made up of 2 different plans I looked this up after all. However again it"s made up and made up plans are only done in the 3 forms of debate I mentioned many times now, especially congress. I can't combine he patriot act and some other terrorism policy just for the lols. Lastly he ask me to provide proof his plan isn't real but I can't provide proof of something that doesn't exist. I can't find proof that unicorns don't exist because they don't exist. If something doesn't exist it simply can't be found.
Thus his counterplan isn"t applicable to the round and falls.
BUSINESS CONFIDENCE: Most of this is backed up by his framework which I addressed however now he try's to use the utilitarian ideology I presented so I will address that. He claims that my side isn't presenting how it will save lives but neither does his, also I am not advocating I can prevent people from dying I am just advocating if we remove pay day lending services as choice people will be able to improve there quality of lives by not falling into this cycle of debt by extending the initial short term loans for much longer periods, and paying extra fees and high interest rates over long periods of time. Many times the consumers can't ever get out of that initial debt which leads to a cycle of debt. I agree with him that the perseveration of life is needed for existence but payday lenders make good profit is by imposing high interest rates in order to leave the consumer in a cycle of debt in which a person spends the rest of his life attempting to pay back. This is detrimental as we can see to the preservation of life. I am showing that since pay day lenders are unethical people who purposely put people in debt and wrongly use bribe the criminal justice system which he concedes to, they don't deserve the preservation of life as much as the innocent people they harm. Iam not only showing that we will save individuals by preventing them from entering this cycle of debt but I am also showing that they deserve preservation more then the pay day lenders since they are not committing bad actions. Also there's online alternatives similar to pay day lending services where pay day lenders can find work anyway which my opponent concedes to. Thus using the utilitarian concept again since MORE people will be hurt if pay day lending continues then if it doesn't this should be banned to save the majority.
I also win the morally wrong argument since I clearly show how pay day lending hurts individuals it should be banned. WE can also look to http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that clearly shows a story of person named Taylor who worked full time but still couldn't pay off the loans and even had to write checks for him and his mother to get groceries. Here's another story http://milwaukeenns.org... Als I have shown on the national, state, and even individual scale that this practice is morally wrong and shouldn't be kept. Also he claims that there is corruptness in the justice system in that area but Texas is a big area, trust me I live there.
Desperation= 10% interest isn't as high as more then 10 times the amount of a typical rate on a credit card. And credit card interest are high enough. Also In the end payday loans are just short term loans with high interest rates with quick return policy. Installment loans are much better in this case, their interest rate is relatively lower and one doesn't have to return it as soon as they have to in payday loans. https://www.prosper.com... according to http://time.com...... from a time money article on the same database as his this method of installment loans is actually the best method to utilize to improve credit for 2016. Also I don't concede that my alternatives are not solutions to an emergency. I just admit that installment loans only require certain conditions but in the long run they are better and don't manifest a cycle of debt.
he makes another argument on my installment loans "he unethical payday lenders would go into the installment loan business and act unethically there too, charging customers unfairly high rates which customers would have to accept because they can't get payday loans anymore." Not only does he concede that they are unethical and harm individuals again but also I can disprove this statement. High school drop outs can go to Starbucks and become good managers https://thebillfold.com.... A new environment with different beliefs can transform the individual. Even if not you can't break rules.
Faith based organizations= He attacks this by claiming since some churches are for profit they will not give these loans. That isn't true in fact a lot of churches participate in NGOS which of course cost more then loans do. http://www.lifespirit.org...
Autonomy: People are persuaded into pay day lending. They are unaware of the consequences which I clearly show in the articles I present on individuals.
Conclusion: I won since I defended every argument I made and attacked every response/argument he has presented. Not to mention his proposed congress like plan as well.
1. Pro states he is fine with the regulation argument - which is the whole point of having the counterplan, so Pro basically agrees that I should be able to advocate for increased regulation instead of the status quo, and a counterplan is a perfectly acceptable way to do so. Pro has conceded my claims that considering the possibility of preventing abuse through restrictions rather than an outright ban is an important part of policy-making. This is more important than Pro's warrantless claims that I should not be able to run a counterplan. This is not an unfair counterplan - and as an NPDA parli debater, I have seen counterplans that actually are unfair.
2. Pro does not address the debates I linked to that did have counterplans. None of these debates specify in their acceptance whether counterplans are allowed, so the most reasonable interpretation of my first three links is that counterplans are allowed in debates when the criteria says nothing about whether they are allowed. I do not contradict myself because those debates that accept counterplans have nothing in their acceptance criteria about whether counterplans are allowed, yet the CP's in those debates were accepted when there were run. Pro says that I should not be able to run a counterplan because he didn't specifically invite them. Yet nowhere in the criteria does it say that Con is limited to the arguments that Pro has specifically allowed to be run in the round. If it had said that I would not have accepted the debate because such a restriction would have been inherently unfair to me as Con.
3. In Round 3, Pro said "No I clearly stated the options you had in your burden I despise counter plans especially ones that aren"t even real. Also I didn"t set this like a Congress debate, policy debate, or LD debate so I don"t know why you"re trying to make up something and run it. " This statement implied counterplans are acceptable in Congress debate, and because I have never watched or participated in Congress debate I had no way of knowing whether this was true. I only added this because I assumed that if counterplans are accepted in Congress debate, the references to Congress debate would imply that arguments used in Congress debate would be acceptable here. If you are judging this debate, think of what you initially assumed Pro was saying when he talked about Congress, policy, and LD.
4. I would like to thank my opponent for educating me on how Congress debate works, as I knew nothing about it and my own debate experience comes from American parliamentary debate in the NPDA format. I will not claim that this is a Congress round because I do not need to do so in order to run a counterplan. I have provided three examples of DDO debates with unclear formats that do not mention Congress, Policy, or LD in the acceptance criteria and still have counterplans. In one of the debates that I linked to, someone ran a counterplan saying that "the USFG should substantially increase its support of prisons inmates through increased maintenance of those prisons, and release of unwarrented prisoners." I could not find this CP anywhere on the internet other than DDO, so it is even more "made up" than my CP. The debate it was in had no connection to Congress, Policy, or LD, so we can conclude that "made up" CP's are an option on DDO. You can find the debate here: http://www.debate.org...
He does not have to prove that my CP is not real - all he has to prove is that CP's like it are not allowed, which he has not done, while I have provided evidence showing that CP's like this one are acceptable. Also, his claim that made-up plans are only allowed in Congress, Policy, and LD is false because I know from my own debate experience that they are allowed in Parli.
For these reasons you should be allowing me to run a CP, and Pro has conceded all the benefits of the CP, so I will win the debate because the CP solves for the worst of the harm caused by payday loans and does not link into the disadvantages.
Extend that the impacts of this disadvantage are based entirely on perceptual links that Pro conceded. Therefore, we can assume with certainty for this debate that banning payday loans will hurt other sectors of the economy due to fear of regulation. Pro claims that hurting the economy would not cost any lives but he provides no warrants or reasons to support that claim. Extend that when the economy suffers people die due to crime and lack of medical care.
Pro claims that MORE people will be hurt if payday lending is allowed, but the economy affects everyone, not just the 12 million people who get payday loans, so that is not true. Also being dead due to crime or illness is worse than being stuck in debt from a payday loan - and my counterplan prevents payday loans from causing long-term cycles of debt.
Pro claims that it is morally wrong to allow payday loans, but it is also morally wrong to prevent people who want payday loans from getting them. Also Pro concedes that not everything that is morally wrong should be banned, and the resolution is that "Payday Loans Should Be Banned" not "Payday Loans Are Bad." Therefore, this contention should not be considered in evaluating the outcome of this debate.
DESPERATION AND INSTALLMENT LOANS:
10% per year would not be a high interest rate, but I said 10% per MONTH. This translates to an APR of 214% (or 120% without compounding.) Pro has conceded my arguments about loan sharks and only provided alternatives that do not solve for everyone who wants a payday loan, so in a world without payday loans there will inevitably be some people who turn to loan sharks, who are more dangerous than payday lenders. Cross-apply my arguments about how death is worse than debt, and loan sharks are dangerous. Also Pro concedes that an increase in demand for installment loans will cause them to become more expensive, so this prevents installment loans from solving the problem. Either people don't use them and rates stay the same, or rates go up due to higher demand, causing Pro's claims of installment loans being better to no longer be true in a world without payday loans. The claim about high-school dropouts becoming Starbucks managers is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with people who charge high interest rates.
The claim that churches participate in NGO's that cost more than those loans is another non-sequitur. I was not saying that churches would refuse to give those loans because are for profit - they already do give out loans. What I was arguing instead was that the lack of a profit motive means that churches will not provide any more loans if payday lending is banned. Pro conceded this.
Pro has already conceded this argument in Round 3 so it is too late for Pro to answer it. The claim that people can be persuaded to do something does not mean they lack free choice, because the same excuse could be used to deny people the freedom to do any other thing Pro wants to ban. There is a difference between persuading someone to do something, and forcing someone to be denied access to a service that they desire.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.