The Instigator
PervRat
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Bnesiba
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,350 times Debate No: 9071
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

PervRat

Pro

In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score.

I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line.

Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example).

I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!
Bnesiba

Con

Thanks for the great topic!

I'm going to present my case in LD simply because it is the format I know best. My opponent does not need to follow this format if he does not want to.

I stand in negation of the resolution, Resolved: the use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed.

Definitions:
Credit Score - A computer-generated score used to determine how likely a person is to repay a loan.
should - indicative of moral obligation
tightly curtailed - significantly reduced

Resolutional Analysis:
Because the resolution indicate a change, specifically curtailing the use of credit scores, the only neg burden is to uphold the status quo. Furthermore, because the resolution indicate moral obligation, the pro MUST provide an ethical reason why the use of credit scores is immoral.

Value: Justice
Justice is defined as each person getting what they are due. Because we are talking about changing the availability credit ratings, it is important to examine whether or not it is just that the people using such data are able to.

Criterion: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the most common and most simple moral frameworks. It holds that an action is right in proportion that it tends to promote happiness and wrong in proportion that it tends to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness pain and the pervasion of pleasure.

In conclusion, what one is due is determined by whatever would produce the most total happiness.

Contention 1: Credit score is an important indicator

A.) Credit score is a measure of trustworthiness and foresight
If you look to the definitions, credit scores are the likeliness that someone will pay back a loan. Another way to put that would be a credit score is the likeliness that someone will keep their word. When one takes out a loan, one gives their word they will pay it back. When they don't, for whatever reason, they are not keeping their word.

B.) It is important to be able to trust the people you deal with.
When hiring people, leasing your property, or simply lending someone to someone, it is important that you can trust they will uphold their part of the bargain. By seeing the person's credit score, you are able to determine if this person is trustworthy.

Contention 2: Curtailing credit scores is hypocritical.

A.) Other, similar scores are used every day (and are very much supported)
One very good example is a criminal record, or the sex offender record. If you follow the affirmative's logic, the use of these records would also have to be banned. In a criminal case, if one of the people near the crime is known to have a record of violence, the police should NOT, according to the affirmative logic, be able to have this person as a suspect. Furthermore, companies, even day care centers should NOT, again following the affirmative logic, be able to use the sex offender record to disqualify certain people from working there.

Therefore, in order for you to vote aff the aff must also prove that the use of these "scores" should also be tightly curtailed.

Contention 3: Curtailing these scores is IMMORAL

A.) Curtailing the use of credit scores has the potential of causing much harm.
When companies hire employees, give someone a lease or any similar action, they must, in order to stay in business be assured that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain. People with bad credit ratings have a history of NOT upholding their side of these deals. If these companies were forced to work with these people, they would go out of business, and all the people they were currently helping would be left out to dry.

In conclusion, because credit scores are important as an indicator of trustworthiness and because stopping the use of credit score is hypocritical and immoral and unjust, I urge you to vote NEG. (CON)

Although The pro's first post stated that I was to make the opening argument, there are a few points in the pro's first post I would like to address.

1.) "Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example)"
If you look to the resolution, I as the con, have to do none of these things. The only thing I have to prove is that the use of them should NOT be curtailed. However, if you look to my case, you will see that I did cover these points thoroughly.

2.) " and use this round solely to define the argument"
I'm just not sure what this means…I think that it means that there will be no new arguments allowed after the first round, which is standard in most types of debate, but I'd just like to make sure.
Debate Round No. 1
PervRat

Pro

The rampant abuse of credit scores is a long-overlooked blacklist conspiracy in our society that follows in the footsteps of grave injustices in the name of capitalism: plantation slavery, child labor, segregation and deadly work environments. There's no justice nor fairness, and frequently things such as medical problems supposedly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act have their protections completely stripped by these blacklists. Even if we ignored all the fraud, abuse, inaccuracy and injustice, if we get to the supposed principle of a credit rating as a person's ability to pay off debt, then it should not be used in any circumstances except in determining a person's suitability to obtain a loan.

A person's ability to pay loans and their work ethic are very different meters. A person's ability to pay loans is much less in their control than their punctuality and effort in doing a job well, therefore I say there is no link and denying a person employment based on their credit score is unfair, unjust and in opposition to liberty in that it oppresses them and prevents good people from being able to pay off their debts.

Worse, a significant portion of debt is medical bills, and using a credit score lowered by medical debt to deny or charge someone a higher rate for rent or other services should be considered a violation of the Americans with Disability Act. Why should businesses be allowed to violate the ADA through a conspiratorial blacklist of private citizens who have trouble paying medical bills?

On the flipside, why should a person who got away with embezzlement or profited from overseas slave labor get rewarded for their high credit rating?

===
COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 1: CREDIT SCORE IS AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR

Credit score is NOT a reliable measure of trustworthiness nor foresight. Corporations set both income from employment and expenses in the price of services, private persons have little control over either. It is not justified to punish a person because they were laid off, their rent increased or their lender changed their loan by denying themy opportunity to earn income or get fair prices for products or services they are not taking loans out to purchse. The use of medical debt to deny a person access to anything should be completely forbidden as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Student loans are another abuse; tuition has skyrocketted and educational instutions rake in obscene money from persons just starting out, making it less and less likely a person will be able to pay that debt off. How much bargaining leeway do students have in tuition? How fair is it the burdens of student loan increase while income does not? Why should students get blacklisted from employment to pay back their loans they have trouble paying when the increases in risk of the debts not getting paid are not the students' fault at all?

On the flipside, there is no assurance whatsoever that a person of wealth and good credit rating is trustworthy. A lot of corporations have evaded environmental, safety and labor/human rights by shifting operations to nations with little or no such regulations. Mutual funds and stocks (and by extension, those who have ample amounts or at least access to ample amounts of them) benefit greatly by these ill-gotten gains that come at the expense of environmental sustainability, human rights and the economic sustainability of the majority of the members of our society. Why should businesses be allowed to conspire to reward violating laws by punishing the already unfortunate?

---
COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 2: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS HYPOCRITICAL

If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record. Further, the criminal justice system operates on the principle that it is worse to unjustly harm the innocent than to punish the guilty; the credit score system does not. Only those who commit a crime under their own free will may be found guilty; someone unduly influenced by, say, insanity cannot be found guilty and punished for the crime. A child rapist gets civil protections under criminal justice laws; a person laid off and unable to make payments does not. How is this justified?

The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a a "guilty until proven innocent" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap. A convicted criminal, by contrast, can pay their debt to society.

---
COUNTER TO CON'S CONTENTION 3: CURTAILING CREDIT SCORES IS IMMORAL

Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse, it is unfair and unjust to allow employers to use a credit score as an employability factor. Even for a person who did "bite off more than they could chew" and deserve low credit scores, their use in determining employment as a determinant of not holding up their side of deals constitutes fraud and conspiracy to prevent the person from being able to repay loans. How many bills can you pay if you are blacklisted from working?

Even outside of student and medical debts, most troubles paying debt are from a combination of layoffs and contract terms being changed by corporations with no control by an individual. My landlady's house payments were doubled over just a short time as her loan was sold and re-sold from institution to institution; she was able to keep up with the original payment and terms, but the terms were changed on her without notice and as her minimum payments were doubled, she had more and more difficulty making payments until she finally started falling behind and her home was put in foreclosure. What justification is there for punishing her by making her pay more for things and denying her an opportunity for better employment to pay her bills? This oppresses people and blocks them from equal opportunity and thus must not be allowed to continue. The status quo to continue is an attack on freedom, liberty, equality and justice. Companies will not change this behavior on their own, therefore regulations must be brought to bear on this abusive blacklisting conspiracy. Credit scores are corrupt, wraught with fraud, full of errors and even when they are accurate (far too infrequently), they are still unjust to conspire against people by blacklisting them from employment, housing or other services.

Contention 3: Curtailing these scores is IMMORAL

A.) Curtailing the use of credit scores has the potential of causing much harm.
When companies hire employees, give someone a lease or any similar action, they must, in order to stay in business be assured that the other party will uphold their side of the bargain. People with bad credit ratings have a history of NOT upholding their side of these deals. If these companies were forced to work with these people, they would go out of business, and all the people they were currently helping would be left out to dry.

In conclusion, because credit scores are important as an indicator of trustworthiness and because stopping the use of credit score is hypocritical and immoral and unjust, I urge you to vote NEG. (CON)

===
CLARIFICATIONS:

"If you look to the resolution..."

You points I have refuted. You will need to disprove my rebuttals or make new ones that have some reliable justification to them and establish that the status quo is free from corruption and abuse, fair and just in contrast to the points I have made.

"I'm just not sure what this means…"

By that I meant I was not making an argument in round 1, merely attempting to define the argument. This -- round 2 -- is my opening argument.
Bnesiba

Con

First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round.
Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round.
Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round.

Neg:
C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly.
P1:
First, my opponent makes "the corporations" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer.
Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is "forced" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero.
Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place.
Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from.
Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way.

However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter.

P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school.
P3 Flipside:
I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such…
If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners…
Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed.

C2:
"If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record."
1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1.
2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: "because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people".
A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright.

"The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a "guilty until proven innocent" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap"
1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…)
2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full.

C3: "Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse"
1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall.
2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the "innocent until proven guilty" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall.
3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job.
4.) Landlady:
Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well.
5.) More Harms:
By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral.

AFF CASE:
1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden.
Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be "unfair" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win.
2.) Ban V change
the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other "scores" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it.
all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements.

In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of
Debate Round No. 2
PervRat

Pro

C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers.

Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous.

Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments.

C1P2: Student Loan - There is no "cheap" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree.

None of these situations are in the control of a consumer.

C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process.
I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying.

C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination.
C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job.

"System of credit bureaus..."
1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a "bad" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc.

2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the "mercy" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how "good" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income?

In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act.

C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm.
C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless.
C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are.
C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all.

AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse.
AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness.

I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom "all people are created equal" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.
Bnesiba

Con

Bnesiba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PervRat

Pro

As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points.

Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income -- and medical debt.

Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties.

A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people.

Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory.

If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores.

Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you. I thank my opponent for taking up this challenge.
Bnesiba

Con

I apologize for my forfeit of the last round. I recently had my wisdom teeth out and with the pain and the drugs I completely forgot about this debate.

However, the forfeit of a round does not mean I forfeited the debate.

First, I would like to explain why all the points my opponent has made in the last two posts are irrelevant.
A.) I would like you to look though everything my opponent has posted. he has not shown a scrap of evidence that people are using these scores against people as he claims. Because you have no evidence that these things are happening, all my opponent has given you to vote on are baseless claims. Without and evidence to the contrary you MUST vote for the status quo.

B.) Look to my first post as well. In my opening I very clearly outlined the burdens for both sides under "resolutional analysis". This analysis was never argued throughout the debate and therefore stands as the burdens for the round. In that analysis the affirmative (pro) had to show a moral obligation to change. My opponent has not done this. He has made many claims that it is unfair but does not explain why unfair is immoral. He never defines morality and never mentions it in any of his posts. For this reason you cannot vote affirmative.(pro)

I will continue by refuting my opponents most recent claims:
1.) "significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income"
>a.) This significant percentage has no numbers, no evidence. For all I know, my opponent is simply making this up.
>b.) One does not have to be lucky to get help for college. I leave for my first year of college in a few weeks. My family is poor enough for me to get the maximum pell grant. Furthermore, I have received numerous merit based rewards from my school. Most of these were given to everyone who qualified. Pell grants are similarly given to any family poor enough to need them. With the government money combined with my scholarships I am attending a 40k/year school with only a few loans. This was not luck, this was hard work.

2.) "A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker."
Technically, this is true. Also, someone with an extensive criminal record can be a very kind and helpful person while someone with no record can be a terrible crook. HOWEVER, normally, when someone is unable to pay back their loans is a good indication they won't be able to pay their insurance or a monthly payment on an apartment either. Furthermore, ones credit score does not go from good to terrible overnight. Because of this, someone with a terrible credit score is more likely to have a poor work ethic. This is shown by the fact that they have failed to make payments multiple times in a row. They clearly have not tried to get help and if they can't be motivated enough to save themselves I wouldn't want them working for me.

3.)Logic Fail:
>"Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory"

>"If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores."
The second line is a twisting of the burden to gain votes not rightfully his. In fact this statement could only be true if it were re-worded:
"if you agree that in ALL circumstances aside from obtaining a loan the use of credit scores is discriminatory"
This is what my opponent is in favor of. look to the quoted section above. Very simply, if people who were renting or selling property could not look to credit scores bad things would happen.

4.) Curtailing the use of credit scores, as my opponent wants, is immoral.
My opponent wants them to only be used for loans. However this would mean that one couldn't use them to judge the likeliness of someone making a monthly payment on a house, or an insurance policy. It is equally likely one would pay back a loan as it is that one would make a monthly payment. If people selling or renting property could not look at credit scores, there are only two outcomes. Both worse that the status quo.
A.) no one would sell. If no one sold or rented property to strangers (due to fear of not getting paid) there would be a much larger number of homeless and a lot of people would likely die. This would, using the utilitarian framework I set up to judge morality in my first post, be IMMORAL.
B.) A bunch of people who were renting or selling their property (by themselves or through real-estate companies) would go bankrupt. This would destroy the economy and have the same effect as point A.

Because the only thing that can come of affirming the resolution is more pain, through a utilitarian framework, affirming is IMMORAL.

In conclusion, because my opponent has given no evidence and has not upheld his burden throughout the round even if my refutations were not sufficient you CAN NOT vote pro for this debate. Furthermore, by explaining how affirming this resolution and voting pro is immoral, I have upheld the negative burden of this debate.

Therefore, as judges the only logical vote is Negative.(con)

Thanks for judging and thanks to my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
You were right... it is hard to stay within the character limit :/
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Re: arguments in comments - True, I agree with that.

Re: If it was that one sided ... well, argue that in your debate round. Unfortunately I had to badly hack and slash my round down to fit the character limit >_<
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
If it was that one sided, the use of credit scores would have already been curtailed.

oh, and i would just like to point out that arguments made here should not and are not going to be voted on...
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
... and based on that, of course I expect some would hesitate to take up the con side of the debate. Its not really fair, is it? :P
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Con needs to establish the status quo is just. That means any points I make that establish the status quo as being unjust need to be refuted. The status quo must be fair and just in at least a strong majority of cases to justify refusing to act to inhibit the use of credit scores to deny people employment, charge them a higher rate for a service even if they prepay (which eliminates risk of them missing a payment), etc.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
"Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example)."

Uh, really? You open by saying they should be banned, which is different than the resolution. Then you say Con has two specific burdens.

While tempting, there's too much ambiguity in the resolution and your expectations for my taste.
Posted by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
Thanks, sorry I abandoned the site
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Welcome back, PervRat.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by PervRat 8 years ago
PervRat
PervRatBnesibaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
PervRatBnesibaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PervRatBnesibaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70