Payday lending Services should be banned

COUNTERPLAN: 1. Pro states he is fine with the regulation argument - which is the whole point of having the counterplan, so Pro basically agrees that I should be able to advocate for increased regulation instead of the status quo, and a counterplan is a perfectly acceptable way to do so. Pro has conceded my claims that considering the possibility of preventing abuse through restrictions rather than an outright ban is an important part of policy-making. This is more important than Pro's warrantless claims that I should not be able to run a counterplan. This is not an unfair counterplan - and as an NPDA parli debater, I have seen counterplans that actually are unfair. 2. Pro does not address the debates I linked to that did have counterplans. None of these debates specify in their acceptance whether counterplans are allowed, so the most reasonable interpretation of my first three links is that counterplans are allowed in debates when the criteria says nothing about whether they are allowed. I do not contradict myself because those debates that accept counterplans have nothing in their acceptance criteria about whether counterplans are allowed, yet the CP's in those debates were accepted when there were run. Pro says that I should not be able to run a counterplan because he didn't specifically invite them. Yet nowhere in the criteria does it say that Con is limited to the arguments that Pro has specifically allowed to be run in the round. If it had said that I would not have accepted the debate because such a restriction would have been inherently unfair to me as Con. 3. In Round 3, Pro said "No I clearly stated the options you had in your burden I despise counter plans especially ones that aren"t even real. Also I didn"t set this like a Congress debate, policy debate, or LD debate so I don"t know why you"re trying to make up something and run it. " This statement implied counterplans are acceptable in Congress debate, and because I have never watched or participated in Congress debate I had no way of knowing whether this was true. I only added this because I assumed that if counterplans are accepted in Congress debate, the references to Congress debate would imply that arguments used in Congress debate would be acceptable here. If you are judging this debate, think of what you initially assumed Pro was saying when he talked about Congress, policy, and LD. 4. I would like to thank my opponent for educating me on how Congress debate works, as I knew nothing about it and my own debate experience comes from American parliamentary debate in the NPDA format. I will not claim that this is a Congress round because I do not need to do so in order to run a counterplan. I have provided three examples of DDO debates with unclear formats that do not mention Congress, Policy, or LD in the acceptance criteria and still have counterplans. In one of the debates that I linked to, someone ran a counterplan saying that "the USFG should substantially increase its support of prisons inmates through increased maintenance of those prisons, and release of unwarrented prisoners." I could not find this CP anywhere on the internet other than DDO, so it is even more "made up" than my CP. The debate it was in had no connection to Congress, Policy, or LD, so we can conclude that "made up" CP's are an option on DDO. You can find the debate here: http://www.debate.org... He does not have to prove that my CP is not real - all he has to prove is that CP's like it are not allowed, which he has not done, while I have provided evidence showing that CP's like this one are acceptable. Also, his claim that made-up plans are only allowed in Congress, Policy, and LD is false because I know from my own debate experience that they are allowed in Parli. For these reasons you should be allowing me to run a CP, and Pro has conceded all the benefits of the CP, so I will win the debate because the CP solves for the worst of the harm caused by payday loans and does not link into the disadvantages. BUSINESS CONFIDENCE: Extend that the impacts of this disadvantage are based entirely on perceptual links that Pro conceded. Therefore, we can assume with certainty for this debate that banning payday loans will hurt other sectors of the economy due to fear of regulation. Pro claims that hurting the economy would not cost any lives but he provides no warrants or reasons to support that claim. Extend that when the economy suffers people die due to crime and lack of medical care. Pro claims that MORE people will be hurt if payday lending is allowed, but the economy affects everyone, not just the 12 million people who get payday loans, so that is not true. Also being dead due to crime or illness is worse than being stuck in debt from a payday loan - and my counterplan prevents payday loans from causing long-term cycles of debt. MORALLY WRONG: Pro claims that it is morally wrong to allow payday loans, but it is also morally wrong to prevent people who want payday loans from getting them. Also Pro concedes that not everything that is morally wrong should be banned, and the resolution is that "Payday Loans Should Be Banned" not "Payday Loans Are Bad." Therefore, this contention should not be considered in evaluating the outcome of this debate. DESPERATION AND INSTALLMENT LOANS: 10% per year would not be a high interest rate, but I said 10% per MONTH. This translates to an APR of 214% (or 120% without compounding.) Pro has conceded my arguments about loan sharks and only provided alternatives that do not solve for everyone who wants a payday loan, so in a world without payday loans there will inevitably be some people who turn to loan sharks, who are more dangerous than payday lenders. Cross-apply my arguments about how death is worse than debt, and loan sharks are dangerous. Also Pro concedes that an increase in demand for installment loans will cause them to become more expensive, so this prevents installment loans from solving the problem. Either people don't use them and rates stay the same, or rates go up due to higher demand, causing Pro's claims of installment loans being better to no longer be true in a world without payday loans. The claim about high-school dropouts becoming Starbucks managers is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with people who charge high interest rates. FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS: The claim that churches participate in NGO's that cost more than those loans is another non-sequitur. I was not saying that churches would refuse to give those loans because are for profit - they already do give out loans. What I was arguing instead was that the lack of a profit motive means that churches will not provide any more loans if payday lending is banned. Pro conceded this. AUTONOMY: Pro has already conceded this argument in Round 3 so it is too late for Pro to answer it. The claim that people can be persuaded to do something does not mean they lack free choice, because the same excuse could be used to deny people the freedom to do any other thing Pro wants to ban. There is a difference between persuading someone to do something, and forcing someone to be denied access to a service that they desire.