The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

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.