The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

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.