The Instigator
lorca
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The use of credit scoring should be prohibited in hiring practices.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/29/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,192 times Debate No: 4544
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (10)

 

lorca

Pro

The information that is used to create a credit score is derived from five main areas: types of credit in use (10%), new credit (10%), Length of credit history (15%), amounts owed (30%), and payment history (35%). Credit agencies do not use factors such as gender, race, nationality, or marital status. According to the Fair Isaac Corporation, "non-minority and minority applicants are equally likely to pay as agreed."

Even though credit agencies do not directly use the factors listed previously, they still may have an unintended impact upon an individuals credit score. Anytime a person cosigns a loan or shares a joint bank account with someone, they are just as liable and responsible for good repayment.

However, credit scoring is being used for more than just determining the financial risk of lending to a person. It is also being used to determine insurance rates, as an aid in employee selection, and in investigations.

While the debate continues in the insurance field, a change in how banks and other financial institutions use additional information, such as age, income, gender, and race, came into light. Jo Ann Barefoot explains how the use of credit scoring may cause business to be guilty of one of three illegal forms of credit discrimination. These are: 1) overt discrimination, "where a lender directly and intentionally turns down a qualified applicant or sets adverse loan terms based on a prohibited factor like race or gender" 2) disparate treatment, "where similarly qualified customers are treated differently based on a prohibited factor" and 3) disparate impact, or "the use of a policy or practice that is neutral on its face but has disproportionate adverse effect on a protected group, and that cannot be justified by business necessity."

Based on the findings expounded by Mr. Montemayor, a claim for disparate impact could clearly be seen if credit scoring, a "neutral on its face" factor, can cause disproportionate adverse effect. Barefoot goes on to state that "The Justice Department (of the United States) has said there are three types of disparate treatment—underwriting discrimination, pricing discrimination, and marketing discrimination." She goes on to explain that overt discrimination is rare, disparate treatment is often overlooked, but disparate impact will be the next issue affecting the use of credit scoring as standard policy and practice. While Barefoot intended this to affect the domain of financial services and lending, it clearly has extended into insurance underwriting and employee selection.

While the use of credit scoring is directly related to financial services and debatable in the venue of insurance underwriting, it has still not been seriously considered in hiring and employment policy. Palmer and Koppes explain that some believe that credit history might have some ability to predict behavior based on three arguments: 1) credit history reflects past applicants conscientiousness, 2) credit history might indicate whether an applicant is currently in financial trouble, and that this could be indicative of the likelihood or temptation to steal or to leave the company for another, better paying job, or 3) to avoid a negligent hiring claim.

Essentially, the first two reasons reflect past behavior in an attempt to predict future behavior and performance. The avoidance of negligently hiring someone is partially debunked, since past behavior can only serve as a reason not to hiring someone, such as a conviction listed in a background check.

The use of credit history might also reflect other information, valid or invalid to the past behavior of an individual. Situations such as death, divorce, severe disabling accidents (thus affecting a person's ability to work and continue to pay bills), identity theft, behavior of a co-signer, youthful stupidity, and economic shock can skew a person's credit score, thus invalidating a person's perceived propensity to steal or otherwise be a risk to the business. This is also the exclusion of the fact that credit histories often have many inaccuracies unknown to the job applicant.

Palmer and Koppes, through statistical evidence, show that there is no correlation between credit history and job turnover for any reason, positive or negative. Ultimately, the two suggest that employers can use any test or predictor they choose, so long as it does not create adverse impact against a protected class. Adverse impact is not illegal in three instances, bona fide occupational qualification, business necessity, and job relatedness. The case of credit scoring as a predictor for employment performance or risk aversion is a stretch in light of similar implications under review in the fields of lending and insurance underwriting.

In summary, the use of credit scoring in hiring policy or practice should strongly validate a correlation between credit history and something directly relating to the job. At this time, other indicators should be used that more thoroughly correlate with job performance than credit scoring.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Unfortunately, your first round argument seems to answer a slightly different question than that the resolution brings up. You seem to be attempting to answer the question "Should companies choose to use credit scoring in hiring practices?" The resolution, however, asks whether it should be PROHIBITED,which means all your questions of whether it's correlated with turnover (not necessarily the only factor with which one should be concerned, especially if they steal and don't get caught, or are subject to blackmail for their debts that results in problems in security-sensitives jobs with military contractors and the like who often use credit history, but that's secondary to the main point) are out the window; because it becomes an issue of force, which is absolutely immoral under any non-retaliatory circumstances. The government does not morally have the right to interfere with freedom of association or property rights in such a manner, and the former also happens to be unconstitutional. You see, the sole purpose and justification of government is the protection of rights, when it becomes the violator, people's self-interest no longer clearly lies with that government, and self-interest is the fundamental rule of action. Any breach between actor and beneficiary is an error in planning, an ethical contradiction, because human beings seek to live, and their own life is the only one they can live. Any violation of rights by the government condemns said government.
Debate Round No. 1
lorca

Pro

First off, the resolution is intended for government intervention under EEOC laws to include credit scoring for non-bone fide reasons. This negates anything related to military or security sensitive jobs, and that is a bone fide reason for discriminating against someone under EEOC regulations.

This resolution is intended to protect minorities from the blindness of credit scoring and what it means. Just because someone is a minority does not mean that they, individually, will steal, will not show up for work, or otherwise make them a bad employee. What the statistical evidence basically shows is that if you have 100 Caucasians, 100 African Americans, and 100 Latinos, and so on, the Caucasians and Asians would have the best credit scores. However, this does not correlate that having a bad credit score makes anyone a poor employee. Further, credit scores do not necessarily mean that one has failed to pay his or her bills. Recall, only 35% of the total score is related to repayment history. Credit scoring does not accurately predict anything that would relate to employment, as accurately as it predicts race. So why would anyone use credit scoring for hiring screening?

Yes, the government does have the right to interfere with the freedom of associate or property rights. It's called the social contract theory. I'll even let you pick the one that I'll use. Whether you want to agree or disagree, it's in full effect. It's not something we chose, we were born into it, so long as we are born into a society.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
First off, the resolution is intended for government intervention under EEOC laws to include credit scoring for non-bone fide reasons. This negates anything related to military or security sensitive jobs, and that is a bone fide reason for discriminating against someone under EEOC regulations.
"
Very well, that delimitation was not made clear in R1, as it seems you were attempting to imply there was no bona fide situation for it. Though as I said that was minor in my argument.

"

This resolution is intended to protect minorities from the blindness of credit scoring and what it means. Just because someone is a minority does not mean that they, individually, will steal, will not show up for work, or otherwise make them a bad employee. What the statistical evidence basically shows is that if you have 100 Caucasians, 100 African Americans, and 100 Latinos, and so on, the Caucasians and Asians would have the best credit scores. However, this does not correlate that having a bad credit score makes anyone a poor employee. Further, credit scores do not necessarily mean that one has failed to pay his or her bills. Recall, only 35% of the total score is related to repayment history. Credit scoring does not accurately predict anything that would relate to employment, as accurately as it predicts race. So why would anyone use credit scoring for hiring screening?"

You seem to be trying to obscure. Just because not every member of an involuntary minority is responsible for the statistical situation of their group does not mean that they are not responsible for their own credit score, indeed, it is for precisely the same reasons that absolve them from responsibility for their group, that the fact that their group in general rates poorly on something (credit score) does not absolve them for their individual deficiency in it. The individual is not responsible for the group- nor excused by it. Whether someone has been convicted of a crime is probably about as accurate a predictor of race as credit scores is, does that mean that equal oppurtunity laws should, all else being equal including any "bona fides," employers should have to not discriminate against convicts? Besides, even if the credit score is only 35% determined by poor repayment history, the other factors are likely be good predictors of repayment future... high amounts owed and the like. The separate subscore for repayment, and enough better predictors to replace credit score, may not be available.
Also, you have not demonstrated that it does not predict "anything related to employment," only given a citation that it does not predict job turnover. There are many other things related to employment.

"
Situations such as death, divorce, severe disabling accidents (thus affecting a person's ability to work and continue to pay bills), identity theft, behavior of a co-signer, youthful stupidity, and economic shock can skew a person's credit score, thus invalidating a person's perceived propensity to steal or otherwise be a risk to the business"
Death, divorce, disabling accidents, identity theft, youthful stupidity, and economic shock can all also affect job performance. People with a propensity for these things may not be people you want to hire. Behavior of a co-signer, though I'm unaware how that affects the score unless the loan receiver fails to repay in the first place, of course would not, but that's minor.

Yes, the government does have the right to interfere with the freedom of associate or property rights. "
Nope, that's a contradiction. There can be no such thing as a "right" to violate rights, i.e. for it to be proper relations to violate proper relations (the definition of "right" is "proper relation to the party in question" (the party holding the right)).

"It's called the social contract theory." And it's invalid, for a reason I'll elaborate upon shortly.

"I'll even let you pick the one that I'll use." What one? Social contract theory, as you just stated, is "the,", singular, only one, you didn't give a set of options, but every formulation of that singular theory I've heard is invalid, so for now I pick none.

"Whether you want to agree or disagree, it's in full effect. It's not something we chose, we were born into it, so long as we are born into a society."

And in that statement you have just handed me the reason why social contract theory is invalid. A contract, you see, is an agreement between two or more parties given validity by the distinguishing feature of the CONSENT of every party in question. To put it in simple terms, "I never signed no stinking social contract." As such,it is not a valid claim against me, only a disguise for the actual claim against me, which is a gun in a policeman's pocket (capable of buying momentary cooperation, but at an exorbitant price to them in the long run, especially when more people realize what that gun is doing to them as well). Perhaps a few slaveowners in 1787 made such an agreement between themselves, but it is only a valid claim when laid against a signatory. As they themselves admitted 11 years earlier when they rejected a similar "Contract" imposed upon them by the British Parliament and took up arms to make sure it wasn't enforced. Sigh. If only they had been consistent, they would never have given force to the conflict between the factions of the various types of slaveowners that still delimits the thoughts of people today, making possible such evils as the government interfering in private hiring practices- but worse yet, to outlaw a practice that may have merit, simply because it amplifies a statistical disparity between races, in essence excusing individual behavior just because other people of the same race happen to display it? Race should not be considered an excuse for guilt any more than it should a cause for it.
Debate Round No. 2
lorca

Pro

Con said, "Just because not every…minority is responsible for the statistical situation of their group does not mean that they are not responsible for their own credit score, indeed, it is for precisely the same reasons that absolve them from responsibility for their group, that the fact that their group in general rates poorly on something (credit score) does not absolve them for their individual deficiency in it."

Credit scoring used in hiring practices creates what is called an adverse affect, and it's against the law. Under Title VII, section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it states:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Furthermore, there are two types of illegal employment discrimination (in the U.S.):

Disparate Treatment - Treating an individual, different from other people based on their membership in a protected class.

Disparate Impact - Using employment selection devices, such as written tests and interviews, which appear reasonable but actually have a biased impact on protected groups. Such devices screen out one or more groups at rates that exceed legally acceptable limits.

There is a disparate impact being creating by the use of credit scoring. Just because a singular individual of a protected minority group does have a good credit score does not mean that the group in general is not being impacted.

"…People with a propensity for these things may not be people you want to hire. Behavior of a co-signer, though I'm unaware how that affects the score unless the loan receiver fails to repay in the first place, of course would not, but that's minor."

All of these things are excusable once you are employed. If any of these things occurred, it would a valid reason for a leave of absence, probably covered under FMLA or disability laws. Why should an organization punish outsiders for something said organization excuses from current employees? Furthermore, in the US, it is against the law to even ask about marriage status, disabilities, and economic resources in a job interview. All of these things affect your credit score. As for the case of co-signers, the credit scoring companies' view co-signing as actually taking upon the debt. It is calculated in the amount of outstanding debt, even if the co-signer is not the first person the bank goes after if payments are missed.

I contest your definition of right, instead I offer a more applicable definition as "a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity; the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law." (findlaw.com) For property rights to even be in question, we must first have a society for the protection of rights and property. Since a society is a requirement, a social contract must be in place before it can extend anything to its members. The society and its government do have an obligation to enforce the laws it creates and the rights it protects. In the US, when the Articles of Confederation failed because a weak central government with no power to enforce the laws between states, more power was needed in the central government. This was the justification of for the Constitutional Convention and the formation of the Bill of Rights. If central government (in our case, the federal government) does not have sufficient power to enforce the laws in creates, what good is it anyway? (Wouldn't it be much like the UN?)

To all that read this, please know what the social contract theory is. You don't have to agree with it. There are multiple theories about how it can be applied. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, commonly referred to John Locke's social contract theory. Without understanding this, it is very difficult in to truly respect the reasons for American rights and law. A good summary of the social contract theory and the multiple facets of it, please go to http://www.iep.utm.edu....

The definition given for a contract is not valid in this debate, since social contract is not the same as a regular contract. According the findlaw.com dictionary, a social contract is an actual or hypothetical agreement among individuals forming an organized society or between the community and the ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties or each. In other words, you, me, and everyone that takes part in a society is part of it. Anytime you expect the government to honor your rights within that government, you are in fact under a social contract and responsible to that government.

Locke's social contract theory can be best summarized by going to http://www.philosophypages.com... ,

As for the ascertain that you are not contractually obligated under a social contract, you are in fact, under a bilateral, informal, implied in fact contract. I did not hand you the reason why the social contract theory is invalid. Instead, I do not think you know what the social contract theory is, and; your understanding of contract law is flawed (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... has basic definitions and a listing of different types of contracts). What you state you have not signed is a formal, express contract. However, by entering into trade or by using the benefits created from another party, you are obligated into a contract. I believe a name for this is called a negative option contract. A negative option contract is one of those contracts where a company sends you something, bills you for it, and then it is up to you to reply back sending them the merchandise back. Additionally, if you hold on to it for a certain length of time, you are still responsible. I see the social contract theory much this way, but instead of sending back the merchandise, the way out is to just leave and buy your own self sufficient island. Otherwise, all societies and governments feel that have some obligation to its members and in turn they expect some sort of bilateral compensation.

Credit scoring is intended for financial intuitions to evaluate a person's lending risk and the probability that a person will pay back their debt. In fact, according to myFico.com, "Scoring has proven to be an accurate and consistent measure of repayment for all people who have some credit history." Organizations instead try to show personal responsibility through credit scoring. Credit scoring was not intended to show how often someone shows up from work, how good or bad of a worker a person is, or anything related to employment. Con said, "Race should not be considered an excuse for guilt any more than it should a cause for it." This is not about guilt, this is about the facts that:
1) Credit scoring is being used as a factor in hiring practices regardless if it correlates to the job
2) Intentional or not, credit scores for minorities are proportionately lower than those of Caucasians (more evidence can be found here http://www.insurancescored.com... ).
3) Credit scoring is intended as a predictor of financial risk. Credit scoring does not claim to predict anything related to job performance in any category
4) There are bone fide reasons (such as national security, security, employment in or dealing with large sums of money or sensitive information) in which credit scores could be used as a determinant in employment selection.
5) Using credit scoring adversely precludes minorities from being selected for jobs in which credit scoring is used as a determining factor in employee selection.

For these reasons, the use of credit scoring should not be used in hiring practices.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Credit scoring used in hiring practices creates what is called an adverse affect, and it's against the law."

Whether something actually is against the law has no bearing on whether it "Should be" prohibited, i.e. against the law.

"
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
"
But the credit score does not result BECAUSE of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, only because of his actions. Therefore, no adverse effect in any case :D

"
Disparate Impact - Using employment selection devices, such as written tests and interviews, which appear reasonable but actually have a biased impact on protected groups. Such devices screen out one or more groups at rates that exceed legally acceptable limits.
"
Which isn't established by the law in question. And again that raises the question of "should be," in the resolution, which it clearly shouldn't- it subordinates the individual to nothing more than statistics.

"
All of these things are excusable once you are employed. If any of these things occurred, it would a valid reason for a leave of absence, probably covered under FMLA or disability laws. Why should an organization punish outsiders for something said organization excuses from current employees?"
Because a. it shouldn't excuse it if it doesn't get more value in return than the cost of excusing it (the law forces it to) and thus it should cut costs as much as it can.

"Furthermore, in the US, it is against the law to even ask about marriage status, disabilities, and economic resources in a job interview." That's a nonsensical law, since asking about abilities (which means you find out about disabilities by implication), as well as certain required resources like transportation, is integral to the nature of a job interview.

"
I contest your definition of right, instead I offer a more applicable definition as "a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity; the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law."
Doesn't work that way. The concept of right remains in my argument whether you use the word for a different meaning or not, the meaning in mine remains a distinct concept and must be addressed as such. In essence, "contesting a definition" is a linguistic trick for those who cannot contest the substance, for any purpose but one- contesting a definition of a word ACTUALLY IN THE RESOLUTION, i.e., contesting which definition suits the resolution. But the word "right" is not in the resolution, it's simply a concept I am using to address it, and as such the fact that you have a different definition frankly doesn't matter. To put it simply, it's my term, I define it in the context of my argument, and you have to address it as it stands or not at all. You can dispute whether my concept is valid, i.e. whether the limits I have set on social relations are actually proper, or whether the concept of a limit is valid, but you can't just play with the word and ignore the concept.

"For property rights to even be in question, we must first have a society for the protection of rights and property. "
Not true, actually. "Society" does not protect rights. It is the thing that rights must be PROTECTED FROM. If there is no society, your rights (my term "rights," not yours that you haven't made any positive argument for your case with, and negative arguments against mine can only be made with the terms meaning what I make them mean) are 100% secure, though society does have benefits that come with the drawback of risk to rights.

"If central government (in our case, the federal government) does not have sufficient power to enforce the laws in creates, what good is it anyway? (Wouldn't it be much like the UN?)"
Something with no power is not good, but it's also not bad, like the UN, it's simply irrelevant. But for it to be good it must not only have power, but also good laws to enforce. If it has bad laws, giving it more power makes it worse, not better.

"
The definition given for a contract is not valid in this debate, since social contract is not the same as a regular contract"
In other words, it's just a corrupt etymology, met to trick me. If it's "not the same," i.e., state it openly, NOT A CONTRACT, it cannot be defended on the same grounds as a contract. It needs independent justification, which I await.

"According the findlaw.com dictionary, a social contract is an actual or hypothetical agreement among individuals forming an organized society or between the community and the ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties or each."
There is no such actual agreement (as I have not agreed, and the notion of "the community" agreeing cannot have any meaning other than every component of that community agreeing, because the community minus a part of the community is not the community, i.e., A-X=/=A unless X=0, and I content I am not 0 :D. So you are hereby limited, with this definition, to the hypothetical, i.e., the nonreal as yet. Meaning you may attempt to argue, in perfect compatibility with the resolution, that I SHOULD make such an agreement and agreeing with the resolution would be one of the consequences, but, I haven't, so you can't make any arguments that make the assumption I already have.

"In other words, you, me, and everyone that takes part in a society is part of it. "
Hypothetically WOULD BE part of it. It contains the word agreement, so the word "is" is a lie.

"Anytime you expect the government to honor your rights within that government, you are in fact under a social contract and responsible to that government."
I don't "expect" the government to honor my rights, though even so expecting would not constitute an "agreement" with them. I fully expect they will continue to fragrantly ignore them. And the only "responsibility" to a party that respects your rights is to respect theirs, and that is only as a consequence of your own respect for your rights (failure to observe the rights of another encourages likewise in the opposite direction).

"
As for the ascertain that you are not contractually obligated under a social contract, you are in fact, under a bilateral, informal, implied in fact contract."
You are contradicting yourself, first you attempt to evade by stating a social contract is not a contract (you said "can't refer to the definition of contract," which logically implies, not a contract), now you state I am. No, I am not. I never agreed, therefore, no contract. "Implied" contracts that activate when you take a certain action only exist to the extent that that action made use of the property of the person you are in an "implied" contract, you were told by them that the contract was part of their condition for allowing you to do so, and you chose to take that action. Please explain when this occurred.

"I did not hand you the reason why the social contract theory is invalid."
Yes, you did.

"Instead, I do not think you know what the social contract theory is,"
You've stated it. It confirms my suspicion, that it (specifically the conception of it you are using) is an invalid concept, because you are expecting contradictory qualities of it- you expect that it not require my agreement, yet impose responsibilities on me that are only justified by my agreement.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Nicely done, Ragnar.

Character Limits.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I see the social contract theory much this way, but instead of sending back the merchandise, the way out is to just leave and buy your own self sufficient island."

Problem with that argument- THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DID NOT CREATE THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT. It thus did not create it. Nor has it farmed all the land on it. So it didn't improve on nature throughout it. Very little of the United States is the property of the government by right (none of it, technically, since it paid for it all by taxes, of course, which is stealing, but very little would be even were that not the case :D). It is, thus, stealing the land by proposing such a "contract," akin to making a "negative option contract" by mowing your lawn and claiming if you don't want to pay, you should give the lawn to me :D.

"Credit scoring is intended for financial intuitions to evaluate a person's lending risk and the probability that a person will pay back their debt. In fact, according to myFico.com, "Scoring has proven to be an accurate and consistent measure of repayment for all people who have some credit history." Organizations instead try to show personal responsibility through credit scoring."

Repayment of loans is a facet of personal responsibility.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
yes, the limits do suck

"and; your understanding of contract law is flawed"
The flaw, sir, is in your understanding of my use of the word "Contract." It is not, you see, based on law, but again on the rights I spoke of. Though I read your definition, and it is in fact FULLY COMPATIBLE with my use (I won't go through the rights-justification for it.) So, my understanding is not "flawed," because, you see, the definition contains the pesky word "Agreement," that you seem not to notice.

"What you state you have not signed is a formal, express contract. "
My use of the term "sign" was facetious, I am quite aware contracts can exist without formality or paper.

However, by entering into trade or by using the benefits created from another party, you are obligated into a contract.
When did I enter into trade with the government? Trade, you see, is another pesky word- the voluntary exchange of value from your property for value from another's property. The government doesn't consistently recognize property rights (see IRS, a few supreme court decisions, etc.) and so can't precisely have any. It is incapable of entering into trade. As for "using the benefits," that depends whether the use was voluntary (i.e. if they spray water on your car without asking, that's not a contract for you to pay for a car wash!) and whether they stated specific terms as conditions for your use (you can't give someone a gift and later pretend there was a contract when there was not, for example).

"A negative option contract is one of those contracts where a company sends you something, bills you for it, and then it is up to you to reply back sending them the merchandise back."
That's only valid (morally speaking, regardless of the legality, remember this is a "should be" debate) if you volunteered for it in the first place, otherwise, they are stealing the work of sending it back.
Posted by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
8000 character limits suck!

The social contract theory is often refered to singularly, even though there are multiple takes on it. I apologize that the offer to select my stance was not able to be capitalized on.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Add all that on top of the fact that it's a free country"

Or should be anyway :P
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Credit scores are indicative of much more than one's ability to pay his bills. In many cases, it says a lot about the person's character and his/her ability to make financial decisions. Add all that on top of the fact that it's a free country (ie: an employer should be free to determine the hiring criteria for his own company), and it's an open and shut case.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by righteous-reply 9 years ago
righteous-reply
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dark_faery_gyrl 9 years ago
dark_faery_gyrl
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
lorcaRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03