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

" 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.