The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

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. )