Question: Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.

Title: You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans Content: Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) "Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful."OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. "First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things."I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a "pre-paid" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. "It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring." If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. "Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit."Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you."LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment."If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank."With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car."Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects."I didn't cheat anybody. I "borrowed" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.

Title: A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities Content: Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest "student loans" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great"for a while"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.

Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes "the corporations" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is "forced" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such… If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners… Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: "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." 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: "because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. "The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a "guilty until proven innocent" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: "Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the "innocent until proven guilty" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be "unfair" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other "scores" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of

Title: Bailout of US automakers Content: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos

Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points. Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A 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 -- and medical debt. Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties. 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. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people. 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. Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: "A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt." Chapter 13: "U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years." Chapter 11: "a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts." http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: "It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks." It is not "free money". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn"t "created" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you"re right. It"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I"d appreciate it if you didn"t insult my intelligence. "With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car." No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called "Exempt Property". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I"ve seen it before. It"s not worth it.

Title: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to... Content: Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.

Title: Student Loan Debt Content: I thank Evolution078 for the topic. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove why student loan debt is bad. ==Rebuttal== ---Con's "contention"--- My opponent seems to offer a plan here: that all parents be required to donate $24,000 a year to their child's college tuition. There are a couple problems with this: 1. Poor people often live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford to accumulate $96,000 in savings per child. [1] 2. This is still not enough money. Attending Harvard costs $60,000 per year, for example. [2] Even someone's parents who donated $24,000 per year would still need a student loan in the amount of $36,000 per year. ---My opponent says that without money, students are forced to join the military or go to community college--- He purposely ignores student loans here. Student loans are provided at extremely low interest rates and are tax deductible. [3] Student loans are the best possible deal someone could get while borrowing money. ---Con's "arguments"--- 1) My opponent offers a theoretical example of a poor family who makes roughly $25,000 a year. He subtracts the cost of housing and food for a family of two and says this would leave "Jimmy" with roughly $7500 a year to put in the bank for his child's college. My opponent forgets payroll taxes amounting to $1500 a year, cost of transportation amounting to $2500 a year, and cost of clothing amounting to $1250 a year. [4] [5] Assuming his employer provides health insurance, Jimmy will also pay $1500 a year out of pocket for his premiums. [6] Lastly, my opponent forgets to factor in the high cost of raising a small child, which amounts to roughly $3500 a year. [7] After all these costs are factored in, Jimmy is roughly $3,000 in debt per year. Jimmy has zero money left for savings and will actually owe $54,000 in debt by the time his adopted child reaches age 18. Conclusion: Jimmy cannot afford to pay for his child's college tuition. Student loans will be necessary if his adopted child wants to attend college. A) My opponent argues that median incomes are high in California. However, California is one of the wealthiest states in the Union. The poorest states in the Union have median incomes much closer to Jimmy's income. [8] In addition, all my opponent's arguments here assume that he has proven that even a family living on minimum wage can afford college tuition and is just being selfish and buying "cool knick knacks." Jimmy clearly can't afford tuition if you factor in all the costs. Keep in mind, also, that tax rates go up with income, and that food, clothing, and transportation costs are calculated as a percentage of income, so these costs rise as well with income levels, since the cost of living is higher in wealthier places. My opponent has yet to prove that someone with California's median income could afford full tuition payments. 2) My opponent essentially makes the argument that eliminating student loans will boost the economy However, student loans are just like any other type of loan – they allow people to defer immediate payment in order to engage in pursuits that will pay significant dividends further down the road (college, law school, medical school). In this way, loans make the economy more efficient. Imagine what would happen in the business sector if loans to entrepreneurs ceased to exist. No one would start new companies. The same will happen in technical fields if student loans cease to exist; there would be no more lawyers and doctors. 3) My opponent argues that student loans contribute to the national debt. However, the national debt is caused by accumulating federal budget deficits. Congress borrowing money is solely responsible for the national debt. Personal debt does not contribute to this national debt figure. 4) My opponent argues that people can get student loans if the costs are higher than average (his example is doctors) The average cost of tuition for a private 4-year college in the U.S. is $27,000. [9] The average tuition cost for medical school is $25,000. [10] Under his standard, doctors could not get student loans. 5) What my opponent is essentially advocating here (in his #5) is a collapse in consumer spending. A collapse in consumer spending would plunge us even further into recession. According to the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26th, "the collective purchasing behavior of American households may determine whether the nation continues to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression or slips back into recession." [11] When people buy clothes and toys, employers can start hiring again. Without consumer purchases, employers will have to continue layoffs. 6) My opponent argues for a regressive system Forcing people to save additional money for college each year, based on a regressive system, would have the same effect as raising taxes. Raising taxes during a recession would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. [12] ==My case== C1) Orphans Orphans have no parents, by definition. They require student loans if they want to go to college. C2) Parental rights The average parent in the U.S. spends a quarter of a million dollars to raise a child to the age of 17. [13] Parents have a right to enjoy their own incomes once their child reaches adulthood. If they get more satisfaction from taking a trip to the Caribbean before they die, parents should have the right to do this instead of being required to spend $100,000 on college tuition. If, however, parents get more satisfaction from helping their child pay for college, they should have the option of paying in full. But it should be the parents' right to make the decision of what to do with their money. Adult children are not entitled to this money as a birthright. This is a slippery slope. If parents must save money for their adult children for college, why not require parents to also set up a fund for their adult children to buy a home? How about a dowry fund for marriage? Why not legislate that parents must buy their children a car? C3) Paying the difference My opponent has not allocated enough money to college students to pay tuition for expensive private 4-year colleges and has not left many college students with enough money for room and board. Student loans would still be required to pay the difference between parental donations and what is still owed. C4) People who change their minds My opponent says that if a child does not attend college or drops out, parents can liquidate the college fund. However, people often change their minds and decide to attend college later in life. These people would not be able to afford college without student loans. C5) Stock market crashes Often, people save for college by investing their money in the stock market. A downturn would erase someone's college savings, necessitating student loans. C6) Lower attendance Since many people would now not be able to afford tuition, fewer people would attend college, law school, medical school, graduate school, and business school. Educational declines over a period of many years would erase trillions of dollars from the U.S. economy, as people become manual laborers instead of engineers, doctors, and lawyers. For all of the above reasons, I urge a Pro vote. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Student Loan Debt Content: Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.

Title: There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. Content: As I thought, you are fearful of your bankruptcy in the context of dialogue as opposed to monologue. Sorry, but if you cannot offer the same courtesy you expect me to furnish you, this is a lost cause. I will post an argument if you do the same, but I will not post argument in return for your criticism. I figured you had no ground to stand on if equally challenged. The choice is yours how we shall proceed.

Title: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Content: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing Content: "I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was "worth it" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!

Title: A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It Content: One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called "Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like "tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.

Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: Thanks for a great debate, Eric. I'm going to try to do the exact same thing you just did - dismantle your arguments one by one. I fear this round will be quite a bit tougher than the last one, but here goes. I'm just reminding the voters that again, I believe his spelling and grammar are not up to par. This is part of the voting system, and it is important to keep this in mind. Your first argument paragraph is a direct response to my rebuttal of your suicide point. You state that only some students commit suicide and not all of them. I never said that all students in debt kill themselves as a way to escape financial debt. You didn't cite a source in round 2, because apparently it is a "general fact." I have never noticed a correlation here, and I have definitely never heard of a distinct and certain one being reported in the news. Some examples are then stated showing that student loans can affect one's opinions on suicide. These are mostly valid examples, but I would just like to point out something. The only reason you hear about suicides due to student loans is because someone died. No news story is written about a graduate who found a solid job out of college and is now starting a family. I'm sure this happens more often than suicide, but because it is not shocking or interesting, nobody writes a story about it. The paragraph about Jason Yoder is partly plagiarised, but not sourced. I don"t know if this falls under conduct or sources in the voting process, but it is a big issue. I found the article that you copied from, too (strangely enough, you cite it as a source 3 times later, although one of them is incorrect). More stories follow, such as Toby Thorn's tragic death. At least one of the sources I have found (1) seem to be shocked or confused because the debt was only 8,000 pounds, or roughly the equivalent of $13,000USD. Also, Thorn had only about $8,000 in student loans - the rest was debt from overdrawing his account. Roswell Friend, who is male and not female, may have committed suicide, and for an unknown reason at best. He had received a job offer from Comcast and would have been able to help his mom pay off her debt (2), so I don't think it was because of his own student loans. Claire Ashing's case is sound, yet people are blaming the bank for allowing her loans to run up this high from just ten thousand pounds. However, like your next piece of evidence in Marc Wadjas, this is still a good example. Next is Geraint Banks-Wilkinson, a student who had suffered from depression repeatedly (3) and was only one thousand pounds in debt, as you said yourself. Lisa Taylor was a poorly documented case (or just a common name) and I could not find any evidence other than the source you posted. I realize now, as I am typing this, that most of the previous paragraph was plagiarised yet again from your Guardian source. I think you intended to have quotes in the paragraph, but I don't know where they were supposed to go. Next paragraph. Your two quotes from C. Cryn Johannsen are valid points and I don't have the evidence nor the time to disprove or even argue her. Also, the note is very true and moving, but I doubt the accuracy of his words. Continue on to the next paragraph. You talk about how student loans will accumulate over time and the debtor will be penalized for not repaying their debts. Isn't this obvious? This is not a new idea about debt only relating to student debts. This is how all debt works. "In fact, 'Up to Our Eyeballs' notes that about 9% of Americans aged 45-64 still have student loan debt!" I don't necessarily disagree with this evidence, but I don't know where "Up to Our Eyeballs" comes from. Then, you plagiarise/don't have quotes on the section about John Koch. I want to get on with this debate, so I'm going to move on. You state that I should agree with the fact that dropouts are more successful than college graduates. I don't even know how you can logically say this. I'm not going to be able to find a source for this, because nobody keeps track of the college graduates that are doing perfectly fine and have a job, a car, a solid marriage, and a house. Just a semantic argument here because I am getting a little aggravated. You keep putting numbers in parentheses, such as "(47-68) years old?" This is not relevant to the argument at all, but I was just getting a little annoyed with this. You then try to defend your quote even after admitting that I never directly said the quote. You can't use quotation marks when I never really said it word for word. In round 2, I said you misquoted the source because the title in the source was incorrect. If you had read through the whole article, you would notice that it does say "underemployed" as opposed to "unemployed" (4). Ad hominem attacks like telling me that my eyes aren't working most definitely fall under conduct in the debate ruling. I don't know what you mean by my "funny question" about jobs. Is this relating to your previous China statement? If so, I still don't understand what you meant; if not, I don't know what you are referring to. The Business Insider list is a great source, but it is about jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree, not a degree in general. Granted, many of the jobs listed don't require a college degree, but most of them have requirements that are not easy to fulfill. The majority of the jobs either require an associate's degree, are hard labor, or require previous experience in the field. So yes, these jobs are available, but not to just anyone who wants them. In the next section, you talk about people selling vegetables and becoming rich. You go on to imply that I said all uneducated rich people gained money through inheritance. I never said nor implied this in Round 2. I said that they "most likely" got money through inheritance or other income, but because I didn't have details, I was not sure about it. Another point you have is that one of your previous employers sold potatoes at a young age and came to manage over 400 trucks. Cool! I used to sell lemonade on the streets most summers, and I also used to mow lawns and shovel driveways for people. This doesn't mean anything. For all I know, the man that used to sell potatoes could have gone to Oxford or Harvard or some prestigious college and had a masters degree. Your round ends with saying that college is not worth it because debt weighs you down and suicide is an option. This argument is a far cry from the original debate that studying is not the only way to have a good salary. You have the burden of proof as you are making the claim that there are other ways to obtain a good salary, but you have not provided any alternative methods of getting a solid job. And as a side note, these debts do not take "a life time [sic] to clear if lucky." College debts can be paid off in most situations rather easily. My parents both paid off their debts within 8 years of graduating and getting their degrees. To conclude, I believe that I have refuted your points and, because the BOP is on you, I have no need to explicitly state my own points. This has been an enjoyable debate, and as my opponent said, I hope the voters are not distracted by anything and keep themselves unbiased in this argument. I think I have won on grammar and spelling, and also conduct due to Pro's personal attacks. Please take the time to read through both sides though. Sources: (1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2)http://temple-news.com... (3)http://news.bbc.co.uk... (near the bottom, under Self-harm) (4)http://www.nydailynews.com...

Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.

Title: No debt Content: Student Finance loans that are used to fund students during their university education should not be viewed as 'debt' in the conventional sense. Since 2010 in the United Kingdom tuition fees rose to £9,000 per academic year, equalling a grand total for your typical undergraduate degree £27,000 for tuition alone. This is not counting accommodation and living expenses which should increase your overall borrowing up to £40,000 or more. Those are some rough figures, which if you are applying for university make for some very difficult reading, however, there is a misunderstanding amongst the public and that in 30 years time, all the money you borrowed will be wiped clean. If you borrowed £40,000 from your nearest bank, then they would certainly slap interest on it and it would not certainly be cleared after an extended period of time. You also only start paying the loan back in small instalments if you start earning £21,000 per year, with monthly payments of about £20. If you are lucky enough to be earning £21,000 a year, even £20 a week wouldn't be much loss considering you probably used your degree to get the high paying job in the first place. If you are not so fortunate and you are in a low paying job paying you under £21,000 a year then you pay back nothing. That is right folks, you pay back nothing. Zero. The notion that you will be forever paying off your 'debt' is a weak argument once faced with the actual facts. This enables students to find say part time work during their three years of study to save up for a gap year of travelling, fun and adventures. You wont be followed by 'men in black' driving white vans with a Student Finance recovery logo on the side...

Title: College Textbooks Content: Those elements do not make student's life easier. They will make their life harder because when they graduate they are accountable for all of the loans that will have to be paid back, including textbooks that have been paid or rented by credit card. Colleges should be around to give an education that adults can create a life and career out of. Textbook prices are one less thing to worry about for the struggling student that may not have a job when he/she graduates but plenty of loans.

Title: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin... Content: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many businesses as other processes would be. Bankruptcy effectively reflects a failure on the part of the business and therefore often on the part of the management. They are therefore less willing to spend time in advance planning for it and making the most suitable arrangements for it. This is just as many people who die unexpectedly young in accidents have not ordered their estates in effective ways. It is therefore appropriate that the law takes a more proactive approach to bankruptcy and acts to counterbalance the lack of thought which many companies have put into how they would deal with it.

Title: Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian Content: To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.

Title: financial stress is part of university life Content: The argument opposite seems to centre around two principal points, the first being that it is fun to be in debt. I don't think anyone except a masochist would agree with that. The second point they seem to be making is that debt teaches self-sufficiency. Which is fair enough, only university fees are so large that they cripple students financially for much of the early part of their working life. There is a difference between undergoing minor hardship to teach carefulness with money and being saddled with crippling debt for years.

Title: The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation. Content: I will start this round by pointing out some misunderstandings. Con misunderstands when he says that PRO takes the "when" as "irrelevant" . The debate is "if the growth continues" not "when does bankruptcy happen" PRO is saying that if present trends continue, the USA will again go into bankruptcy, but PRO is not giving a year or saying what generation it will impact. Con believes that the debt could be paid down. History says no. The national debt has not been reduced since 1957 . http://www.batr.org... Con again misunderstands when he says "It will not affect this generation as you have claimed. " PRO never claimed this . Con then concedes by saying "It will take another 30 to 50 years before it could really hurt us if what you said happens." Con cites data that supports PRO regarding the inability of SS to loan money after 2033. http://money.cnn.com... Con again misunderstands about "New revenue sources will be unavailable" He cites percentages of EXISTING sources. These are not new sources. Now on to items 4 to 6 #4 Debt service will consume a higher and higher percentage of the US budget. In 2016 the effective interest rate on the debt was 2%. The government paid $242,000,000,000 in debt service. What is little known is that the actual interest charge was $432, 000.000.000. In other words the feds kicked about one half of the debt service into the next year. Here is a table on the growing interest cost of the debt.https://www.treasurydirect.gov... 2017 $458,542,287,311.80 2016 $432,649,652,901.12 2015 $402,435,356,075.49 2014 $430,812,121,372.05 2013 $415,688,781,248.40 2012 $359,796,008,919.49 2011 $454,393,280,417.03 2010 $413,954,825,362.17 2000 $361,997,734,302.36 Thus it is apparent that the debt has grown over time. At the same time, the debt service has grown and grown. #5 Default Default is a state where the government fails to meet its financial obligations in the short term. Primarily this happens when the USA fails to pay debt service obligations. "In October 2013"..investors seriously wondered whether the U.S. would actually default on its debt." https://www.thebalance.com... "There are... scenarios under which the United States would default on its debt. "...Interest rates would rise...The dollar would drop, as foreign investors fled the "safe-haven status" of Treasuries. ". The dollar would lose its status as a global world currency".The U.S. government would not be able to pay [obligations]. U.S. Government simply decided that its debt was too high, and simply stopped paying interest " https://www.thebalance.com... #6 Bankruptcy A nation becomes bankrupt when its "lifestyle" exceeds its ability to support that lifestyle. Greece is a good example of this situation, as is Argentina, and to a lesser extent, so is Iceland. http://flatheadbeacon.com... Additionally there are 14 countries on the verge of bankruptcy http://www.totalbankruptcy.com..., and the USA is on that list. http://247wallst.com... "Although not commonly known, the U.S. has declared bankruptcy five times, since its foundation. Once it could not pay its foreign debts, and four times could it not pay its internal debts. These bankruptcies had resulted from financial crises in the banking sector, the first of which was in 1790, and the last of which was in 1933."https://www.dailysabah.com...

Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If companies know that they can count on the government to bail them out when they are in danger of bankruptcy, then they will act differently. This is known as “moral hazard”; being reckless in your lending or your investments, because such a venture is risk free. If it succeeds you are likely to make a massive profit. If it fails, then the government will cover the costs of the failure and the company won't bear any of the responsibility of their behaviour.

Title: Tuition-Free College Content: If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.

Title: Making money is better than paying tuition. Content: Generally, making money instead of losing money is a very good thing. And, being loan free is superior to being over your head in debt.

Title: Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Content: This is my first debate on this site so I apologize in advance for not being accustomed to how these are usually done. I would like to add that this debate will most likely be a short one from me (in other rounds) because of how busy I will be in the next week or two. (Also a lot of school work due soon myself) I will now start my side of the debate. 1. Student financial aid is most definitely necessary and a very helpful tool for people less privileged or unable to pay college financial fees and should most definitely be available for anyone from any college, including for-profit colleges. Student financial aid is, in whole, for the students themselves. Student financial aid does help for-profit colleges but overall is necessary for the students as they are always priority in any educational facility. Although for-profit colleges are definitely known to be expensive, (I won"t deny it) it is one-hundred percent the students choice (if not subject to religious/family rules etc.) of where they get their degree. Once decided that they want to receive a degree at a for-profit college it is up to them to pay the fees that apply for that degree. Student financial aid helps the students themselves to overcome their own, personal financial difficulties. Here is a statement from a viable source. "If you decide to take out a loan, you must already understand who is making the loan and the terms and conditions of the loan." [1] Students that do choose to go a for-profit college are always aware of the risks of accepting to go to a "higher education educational facility" [2] including the costs and possible need of student financial aid in that process. 2. That for-profit colleges are more suitable for students. "For-profit schools are often attractive to non-traditional students. With their myriad of online, night and weekend offerings, for-profits provide a lot of flexibility. Many for-profit colleges are also interested in serving minority, low-income and first-generation college students. Students are typically there to acquire a specific set of skills, not engage in less tangible activities such as personal growth and academic exploration." [3] As my source stated "for-profits provide a lot of flexibility" [4] which is known as something all students want in their busy school life. "Flexibility (in for profit colleges): Features like online classes and multiple campuses make for-profit schools more attractive to students with families and busy schedules." "Convenience (in for profit colleges): For-profit colleges make it as easy as possible to enrol for classes and qualify for loans" [4] There"s countless amounts of good reasons to go to a for-profit college, and although the cost is undoubtedly higher than a non-for-profit college, which is a viable reason to get student financial aid, the overall body and structure of for-profit schools includes flexible ways to study and a ton more convenience in that. Conclusion: Although there certainly is a price to pay, for-profit colleges offer flexible, convenient ways to study that can bend to a student"s wishes. Students that can"t afford to go to a for-profit college should most definitely be worthy of financial aid as there are only positives of them receiving financial aid. With the attractive flexibility and convenience of a for-profit college, where can a student go wrong as students are already made aware of the risks and it is ultimately up to them to decide how they path their own lives. I look forward to round 3. :D [1] https://studentaid.ed.gov... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.mycollegeoptions.org... [4] https://consumerist.com...

Title: Better to wait to see if MBA is necessary. Content: While many people advocate for getting higher education sooner rather than later, this is not necessary. It is better to wait to see if the degree proves necessary. If it does, go get it. If not, then you are better off not having the debt.

Title: college tuition too expensive Content: Tamar Lewin published an article "Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.

Title: Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and t... Content: Chapter 11-style provisions encourage sensible corporate planning. Chapter 11 is discretionary and the courts will not look favourably on bad management. An “all or nothing” approach encourages corporate management to act recklessly and reinforce their previous mistakes. If they are headed towards insolvency, they have little or no disincentive from taking extreme risks even where the chance of these turning the company’s finances around is very small. However, the option of reorganisation can discipline the management into being more honest and deliberative, calling in help sooner rather than when it is already too late, and forming an approach which is based on maximising the business potential rather than simply juggling immediate debt payments. This should mean that the business is in a better position to succeed over the medium to long term.

Title: Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions Content: Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...

Title: Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished. Content: Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!

Title: The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams Content: I still do not understand what you mean by the term "equal footing", you have also stated the fact what would require an individual to be indebted to someone else. If you take how you defined the difference between a balance and debt, Williams would certainly fall under debt as shortly after the second exchange she entered in she defaulted and stopped making payments. As for the term "Debtors" as you state "once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default" is absurd, the term "debtor" is used in finance contracts such as loans and finances such as scenarios like this to distinguish the receiving party from the lending party. This term is in no way a condescending term used in a contract to presume default or inability to pay back. When I used to the term "can be subject to arrest" I used it in the context that the law has to be written that way because depending on the circumstance there can be a scenario where the officer would warrant an arrest and there would be a scenario where the officer would not want to arrest the person. That phrase allows for the discretion to be possible, for instance, in this case "could be repossessed" if a client could not afford the monthly payments assigned to their exchange, instead of stopping payments in full, reasoned with Thomas-Walker and asked either for the monthly payments to be lowered or given a minor grace period because of good faith, they have the discretion to use whether to exercise or not exercise repossession under the contract. When an individual enters into a contract asking to be given financial opportunity such as financing, we as a society grant, even understand that the counter parties of these contracts are able to give the financial opportunity because of the leverage of option in this case, "could repossess". If all business contracts such as the one given to Williams by Thomas-Walker were not ambiguous at all and in fact put in complete specific layman terms, there would be situations where an individual can default and get away with it. When I say get away with it I mean stop paying and still possess the items simultaneously that, in my opinion will be opening up scenarios of "unfairness". As for your example about entering a two year contract with a phone company, yes most people are aware of what it means to enter a two year agreement. However there are underlying principles in those contracts that are not full elaborated to an individual instead they may be given to you in a familiar form such as a large document in fine print over the computer with a small box to check at the end acknowledging that you agree to the terms. These fine print underlying principles have many different conditions to the contract that individuals such as myself were never briefed on by my cell phone service provider.

Title: Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by... Content: Reorganisation serves to prop up bad businesses. When a company is approaching insolvency, it reflects the fact that it is basically a bad business or has been badly run. Reorganising it so that it can continue will in many cases simply delay the inevitable by helping the company to struggle on for a bit longer. However, this comes at the expense of creditors. It also serves unfairly to penalise well-run companies against which the firm competes, since these well-run companies need to meet their debts as they continue in solvent trading.

Title: One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School Content: There are many problems in modern America, but I feel a substantial one is the lack of personal fiscal responsibility. To put it simply, many people leave high school and enter the "real world" with no idea how to manage, save, and spend money. To support this claim, I point to the recent downturn in the American economy. A substantial portion of the problem has been attributed to home foreclosures. And why are homes being foreclosed upon? For one of four reasons. 1) The bank loaned money to a person or persons it shouldn't have, someone with bad credit or an unsound financial base. 2) Similar to, but not the same as, the first: people took out loans that they could not afford, or agreed to loan or mortgage terms that can charitably be called risky. 3) Those paying a loan or mortgage practiced irresponsible fiscal management and became unable to make their payments. 4) Those paying a loan or mortgage encountered unforeseen financial difficulties. While almost nothing can be done about the fourth cause, the first three could be substantially reduced if only the participants in the venture had a more solid understanding of just how far one can stretch the boundaries of fiscal responsibility. A personal finance class is thus the beginning of a credible solution. People would learn how to budget, to make payments, and avoid risky investments. Furthermore, 70% of the United States' economy is generated and driven by retail sales (statistic from NPR, National Morning News, 3/14/08). When consumers have more buying power (i.e. more money to spend), it provides a solid foundation for the majority of the economy. Therefore, a personal finance class absolutely should be required in high school. Not only would it improve the quality of life for the people who would have to take it (less Ramen, maybe?), but I have also shown that it would help boost the lagging American economy. This would be incalculably beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Title: Trump made his money through bankruptcy Content: Ok, for starters. Weren't you supposed to be the one against the debate instead of for it? You've clearly stated "He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws." I'm the one who's for this debate.

Title: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr... Content: Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.

Title: debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis Content: Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: Pro: "The student loan problem just means that the poor and middle class owe more money to the government and are further being harmed." Exactly. So any "trickle down" just evaporates into an abyss of nothingness. Give a trickle down to someone who is financially bombed, and your trickle down is meaningless. As a matter of fact, it makes all models useless, unless that model includes paying their debt off or giving them enough money to make a difference. If they owe $150,000 in useless debt and we give them $500, the government intercepts their money to help pay the federal student loan debt. They intercept tax refunds, parts of paychecks, and any money owed to them. So...now they owe $149,500. All of these peoples' money is intercepted before they can even see it. People making say, $17 an hour , are living like people making minimum wage or less. Are they contributing to the economy? No. More than 25% of students who take on college debt are graduating with way too much of it, according to experts. And the repercussions could be lifelong. 25% of students are in the situation I described above. Fix this and you fix a giant heap of the economic unbalance in the U.S. today. Imagine if that 25% were not enslaved to the student loan system. How much money would then go directly into the economy? It would make a massive difference. time.com/money/4168510/why-student-loan-crisis-is-worse-than-people-think According to Sheila Bair, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, "There needs to be more accountability by schools who have been taking advantage of these kids, It makes me very angry.” -The average student loan balance among people with bachelor's degrees has risen from $15,000 in the mid 1990s to about $27,000, according to the Fed. "This is having a crippling effect on economic activity, says Barbara O'Neill, a specialist in financial resource management for Rutgers University." "A lot of things are being postponed. You've got what you call a crowding out effect. People only have so much money," she said. "There’s a lot of business activity that isn’t taking place ... It’s a drag on everything." "Fewer people are buying homes and cars, O'Neill says, because large portions of their income are being eaten up by student loans. They're also less likely to start the small businesses that provide jobs and services that drive the economy." www.businessinsider.com/3-charts-explain-the-effect-of-student-loans-on-the-economy-2015-5 http://www.forbes.com... * Students are having no luck finding jobs except in the service sector industry. For the first time in history, student loan debt now exceeds the total national credit card debt. One in every five young adults between the ages of 18 to 34 are in poverty. economyincrisis.org/content/the-root-cause-for-student-loan-debt * This has a horrible effect on the economy. If graduates are paying back student loans every month, they can’t save up for retirement or a mortgage, or pay off credit cards, financing on vehicles and other debts. They’re unable to spend money at stores, which has a devastating effect on the economy at all levels. "Trickle down" theory holds that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit the whole economy because new wealth at the top will circulate throughout the market and find its way into the pockets of the middle class. It can't find its way to the middle class when it's intercepted to payoff student loan debt that can never be paid off in a lifetime anyway. It trickles down to...the government to try and recover their losses on irresponsible federal lending. The government caused a problem that no current economic model can overcome without the problem being removed or solved. * Supply Side Economics has worked and can work. In the 30 years from the 1980s through the first decade of the new century, supply side economics contributed to the biggest boom in U.S. history. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, "1982-1999 was one continuous mega economic expansion." As it reached into 2007, this 25 Year Boom causef a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. families and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion in 2007. When an adjustment was made for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25 year stretch than in the previous 200 years combined. www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics

Title: Young should go to abroad for higher studies Content: Loaning money? Ok, I concede. But what if, no money to loan for? If you don't have any chance to go to abroad? Will you just be "mad" for not going to Oxford? Of course not. If I will put my situation like that, I would probably do research, ask help from classmates.

Title: The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams Content: Pro Round 4 I am not disputing two contracts. They are one in the same. As to your terminology of debt and balance let us be care how we use this two words, while they may appear interchangeable they are not. A balance is an amount that is remained over of equal footing. Therefore Williams was in good standing to Walker-Thomas. To be in debt which we have commonly use the term, is to fail to maintain the necessary payment of something. Key word here being "failed" Therefore, Williams did not have a "debt", she had a balance, in which she was indebted (financial obligation) to. The ambiguity in the contract is stated on ( 511.2.). It was though Walker-Thomas, classified all purchasers as "debtor(s)", (once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default), instead of indebtors, having a financial obligation . Focusing on the language "could repossess" gives you an option or better yet the possibility to do something, thus making it subjective, this brings to light the "unconscionable" contract. You provided me with an example of a cop making an arrest, as stated by you ""can be subject to arrest". The operative word here is "can" which is objective term. Proceeding with your example of "can be subject to arrest", perhaps this is why NYS stop and frisk policy is so controversial; every Latino and Black American male fits this objective term. As business invitee, Walker-Thomas had the duty of explaining the terms of the contract to Williams. If would be like purchasing a phone unaware of the terms of a two year contract. You cannot walk into a store and just sign a contract without being aware of the plan you are obliging to.

Title: The U.S. economy is a fraud based on the Federal Reserve System of fiat money and legal-tender laws. Content: I look very forward to this debate and I appreciate you posting it. Unfortunately I don't have time this evening to rebut and disprove every point you've made so far so I'm just going to start with a few of your main points and continue in my second round. Economics are a fickle thing. The theory behind economics is often changing and being added on to. It's extremely difficult to understand these theories without a formal education on the matter and even then not every aspect is understood. As an economic and business double major I am fortunate enough to have some knowledge of these theories and their practices today. That being said, a lot of your logic in this debate is flawed. 1. While you understanding the basic principles of lending in today's financial system you lack a greater understanding of the concepts. All loans are backed directly by deposits. You are very right that when you deposit $100 into a bank $90 can be lent out. The remaining $10 or 10% represents the required reserves that a bank must have in their possession at all times. Furthermore, even if that $90 was taken to another bank and deposited, the full amount still exists in the financial system. It may seem like the bank is "creating money" when they lend out the cash but, what they are really doing is speculating on the ability of the borrower to pay that money back. If the borrower fails to pay back the money owed then banks will fail because their balance sheets will be offset. That is why borrowers are thoroughly screened before a loan is made. The required funds exist in the financial system, they just need to be redirected by the borrower towards the bank. Furthermore, the basic use of accounting T chart will prove that every balances out in the long run. 2. "If everyone were to pay back every loan that's outstanding today, there would be no more money. That's because every dollar in circulation represents a debt to somebody. Your FRNs may outweigh your debts, but someone else's debts outweigh their FRNs." You disproved your first sentence by your second and third sentence in this argument. If everyone were to pay back every loan that's outstanding today, we would have all of the FRN's (or currency) in circulation. This goes back again to basic accounting principles and T charts. Everything balances out. 3. FRN's (or currency in your case aren't backed in Gold or Silver because those are unreasonable needs for a developed country. The only reason gold and silver were used to back currencies in the past were because governments were constantly rising and falling and there was no single dominating currency. Modern economics have allowed us to use fiat money (currency not attached to a physical commodity) in every country in the world. At the present time, no countries currency is backed by a physical commodity. 4. The federal reserve was created in 1913 not by the government to create a "legalized cartel of banks", but rather, to promote a stable financial system in the United States. The federal reserve gives banks the ability to lend and borrow money in order to keep required cash reserves. Before the federal reserve was created this was done by debt and security clearinghouses. Nowadays, the federal reserve is even a banks second line of defense, its' first being borrowing and lending money to other banks. Bonds give banks and the federal reserve the ability to earn maximum income on all money within their institutions. A bank buys up government bonds if they have excess money and nothing to do with it because they earn interest and a bank sells government bonds if its' required reserves have dipped below 10%. This was all the time I had to debate tonight but, I encourage you to post more arguments for me to rebut.

Title: You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first. Content: Happy Holidays. I'm playing devil's advocate here (a bit). So: Most of the time your argument is true, however I can think of several extenuating circumstances that could override your argument: for example: Someone's bills are due, they owe you $500, they owe the bills $800, they have $900 in the bank account. If you are someone's friend, than you should yield to the bills that need to be payed. Vaguely incoherent, I realize, but hey...

Title: People need to save to pay off their debts Content: In order to avoid the credit crunch trauma re-occurring people need to reduce their debts. Let us not forget that this recession was due to people not being able to repay their loans, be they mortgages, overdrafts or credit card loans. What we then need people to do is to save their money and repay the debts that they owe. By paying off their debts, banks will receive money that they then need to use to repay their debts to the Government, then the Government can repay what they owe. What is best then is to encourage people to save in order to pay their debts in order for our country to be able to repay its debts in order for our economy to improve.

Title: Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) Content: Yes, plaintiff Williams was responsible for the payments on her purchase, but every individual deserves a second chance, even though they did missed a payment and became defaulted on their prior account doesn"t mean it will happen once again. Walker-Thomas, on the other hand should have been a more responsible business owner, and had better business decision making skills. Knowing that the purchaser Ms. Williams had a prior account in default and still extended her credit to be able to purchase the stereo set she wanted, even though Walker-Thomas knew she wasn"t financial stable. Should the contracts be overturned on grounds of unconscionable acts of poor business practice? The answer should be answer accordingly to the ruling of favor on Williams, yes, she knew she couldn"t afford to make a purchase or to take on "more debt" sort to say, but she did. Just as if you"re approved for a credit card knowing that you already owe the creditor a certain amount of debt or balance, and is struggling to make the minimum payments you"re going to still make purchases and take on additional debt. So who is to blame on that part is the creditor, if you know an individual can"t pay back a loan and missed payments why would you lend out additional money? Just like Walker-Thomas, he knew Williams owed money from a prior account she possessed with his company, but still with poor decision making, and unconscionable business acts, he still went ahead and let Ms. Williams take on an additional loan for a stereo set knowing her financial hard ship she was in currently at the time of the loan was established to her.

Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: 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. )

Title: The loans are preventing economic stability Content: The loans are only a tiny part of the economic problems faced by third world countries, and no-one knows what effect (if any) the dropping of the debts will have. if the loans were dropped the countries may actually have MORE economic problems because the 'First World' countries are not keeping an eye on them.

Title: No debt Content: University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.

Title: The recession is torturing students enough. Content: Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.

Title: college should be entirely government funded Content: yes. agreed that kids that do well in high school do get much needed financial help in college. What about the kids that parents earn too much to receive any state help? Parents might make 60k a year and that is too much for a kids to receive any help at all. with a blow like this kids become discourage to even attend college at all, and let put it like this : more college debt = less college graduate. less college graduate, the harder time this child would have at finding a decent job.

Title: Free college education Content: Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: "Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the "transition to adulthood" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. "The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend "a mere $62.6 billion dollars" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012." Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...

Title: All third world debt should be dropped Content: Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay

Title: Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would. Content: People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.

Title: Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur... Content: Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failure are not so terrible as to deter people from ever wanting to start up their own business. Outside America (e.g. in Europe) the legal consequences of business failure and bankruptcy are often so bad (e.g. liquidation rather than reorganisation is the norm, barring those involved from being company directors, taking all their personal assets including their home, making it hard to ever borrow money again for any purpose) that many men and women who have bright ideas are afraid to pursue them. Not coincidentally, the USA has a much more dynamic economy than other developed countries without Chapter 11-style provisions, creating many more new businesses and therefore more jobs.

Title: Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) Content: It may be true. However, Williams came to Walker - Thomas on her own free will. So, is the company really the one to blame by providing her customer service? In the contract itself, there is not going to be fine print stating we offer second chances. A deal is a deal at the end of the day and the consequences are going to be stated. It is like making a promise and sticking to it. She made a promise by signing the contract and promising not to default. She ended up defaulting and she did not stick to what she initially signed. Williams knew that she had an overdue balance as well just as Walker- Thomas was aware. But, she really saw the stereo set as a necessity although she is living a struggling life. The contract should not be overturned because because the company is not doing anything wrong. If anything, Williams needs to stop going to the company knowing that she cannot afford these items or if she does, pay her installments on time and not default. Your comparison was great with the approval of a credit card. However, that is the individual's responsibility because they chose to add on additional debt, That is not anyone else problem but theirs. If I was struggling, I am not going to dig myself in a hole knowing that I am not going to be able to get out of it no time soon. This is where meaningful choice comes in because on behalf of the company and customer, both have knowledge of the terms within the contract. Similarly to the creditor example with the individual who cannot pay back a loan, that is meaningful choice because you wanted to take the loan out knowing that you are struggling and not be able to pay it back. The creditor is going to lend out more money because the customer keeps on coming to them and digging themselves in a hole more. With that being said, Ms. Williams is a part of this meaningful choice just as Walker- Thomas is because it is a contract and they obviously agreed.

Title: Moral hazard Content: Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?

Title: Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos Content: Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - "is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions."

Title: debt unites students Content: Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more "My Dad is richer than your Dad" bullying.

Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

Title: College students should have access to free public transportation at taxpayers expense. Content: Thanks Con. DEFENSE1) Students have no moneyCon misrepresents her source's statistics. While her source[3] says that a typical student gets 23% of their college fee from loans, she misrepresents it and says that 23% of students take loans. There is a huge difference. 47% of all families reported borrowing to pay for college. So, we know free transport would benefit at least half the college students because they are in debt. The average college graudate has a debt of $19,000 [4]. The already high price of tuition continues to increase [5]. Con says the debt hasn't affected them yet but it will. Students cannot increase their debt by buying cars or paying full price for public transport every day because it will snowball once they graduate. They need every sort of free service they can get.Unemployed people might have low money as well but their requirement for transportation is lower than that of college student as I show in point 2. Lower income people are able to work full time so despite their hourly wage being lower, they can earn more cash than college students and also don't have a staggering amount of debt. Paying for a car or transportation necessitates that students work longer hours. College students working more than 20 hours a week on campus or off negatively affects students' academic performance [6]. College students should be allowed to focus on their academics by having transportation taken care of.2) RequirementPeople who have jobs will be able to afford cars or at least be able to afford public transport by paying the full price. College students have a large amount of debt and limited time to work and so have a higher need for free transportation. They also need to travel far more frequently to class and back than someone who is just unemployed. My opponent says her school provides free transportation. My school on the other hand just cancelled the service[1]. Instead they work with the county's public transport agency to provide free transport to students. The ability of a University to provide transport is unreliable but if they work with their state, it is far more reliable as it is funded by the government. 3) Pay after graduation Taxes are used for many purposes, not all of which benefit the person paying the taxes. For example, if part of your taxes are being used to construct freeways, but you don't have a car and never use the freeways, can you legitimately complain that it is an "unfair financial transaction" or that it is "theft"? Taxes are meant to benefit society as a whole and this is a great way to give benefits to people who need them.4) University owes themPart of the reason students pay such a large amount of money to Universities is not just for tuition but for the facilities the University offers. My school [1] works with the public transport agancy and makes a deal with them for students to be allowed to ride free at taxpayer's expense. Universities should be doing this in all counties because this is a facility that is really needed.REBUTTAL1) Other uses Con would rather use taxpayers money for Social Security and debt. Carpooling, she says, is good for the evironment. Public transport is actually better since more people will use a bus than can fit into a car. Public transportation also saves 1.4 billion gallons of gas a year [2]. This would actually help pay the US debt on oil. Walking may be good for health but people cannot realistically walk long distances to class.2) Increased useCon says free transportation would increase use to the point of being too expensive. Not the case if only college students are given free transportation. The same number of buses need to be run and they only need to accept enough people until they are full. In Riverside, California, college students ride for free [1] and there is no problem of overloading as the public transport is still running (though University operated transport closed for unrelated budget reasons). Sourceshttp://bit.ly...

Title: studying is not the only way to get rich Content: Hi back, before I move on to dismantle your uncited mostly assumption based arguments, I noticed you used logical fallacies like (unfair quotation, straw man, hasty generalization) to misrepresent my information. you may be able to trick the armature readers and writers into believing you by these unethical tactics but that is not goanna work on me. lets start with my arguments that you opposed. first of all, about graduates suicide, i mentioned that "SOME OF THEASE" students end up becoming desperate and commit suicide "not all of them, and it is a real fact and not "OUTRAGIOUS" as you put it. the reason I didn't mention the source or cite anything is because it is general fact. but I give you a couple of or rather( comprehensive) examples to prove that. first I want to start by some real stories: i want to start with Jason yoder an American graduate who had been a graduate student in organic chemistry at Illinois State University but after incurring $100,000 in student loan debt, he struggled to find a job in his field. one night, Jason, 35, left the family"s mobile home and his body was later discovered in one of the labs on his university's campus. he was declared dead due to nitrogen asphyxiation. The sad part is that suicide didn't end his student loan nightmare and student debt collectors were still phoning his mother about the money her son owed.( this story is all over the internet no source is needed) here are some more real tragic stories Toby Thorn from England, had "8,000 in debt when he killed himself. a Temple University student named Roswell Friend committed committed suicide because she defaulted on her student loan., In 2008, 34-year-old science graduate Claire Ashing killed herself after being pursued over "40,000 she owed, as did mechanical engineering student Marc Wadjas, who could not afford to buy food. In 2006 computer student Geraint Banks-Wilkinson ended his life after his bank called in his "1,000 overdraft, and in 2005 26-year-old Lisa Taylor did the same because she felt she would never be able to pay back the "14,000 debt accrued while studying for her degree. She left a note blaming her depression on debt.The number of students who took their own lives in England and Wales rose by 50% between 2007 and 2011 "" from 75 to 112. source(www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/23/student-suicide-depression-debt-recession) Cryn Johannsen of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project writes about the spectre of suicide in connection with student debt: Suicide is the dark side of the student lending crisis and, despite all the media attention to the issue of student loans, it"s been severely under-reported. I can"t ignore it though, because I"m an advocate for people who are struggling to pay their student loans, and I"ve been receiving suicidal comments for over two years and occasionally hearing reports of actual suicides.http://newworkplace.wordpress.com... In accordance with the World Health Organization, over one million people every year die from suicide. Suicidal tendencies are often associated with divorce, depression, ill-health, alcohol or drug problems; student loan debt being the most significant among them. A majority of the people who seek counseling advice are people who see suicide as a way out of private student loan debt problems. source:http://EzineArticles.com... here is a note from a suicidal student from America "I plan to douse myself and light myself aflame on the Capitol steps, to draw attention to the dire situation of the millions of indentured educated citizens who, like me, have no options, plus a predatory banking system coming after us. There is no political solution to this problem . . . I will be setting myself on fire, and the student debt debacle will hopefully come to the forefront of public consciousness." source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... that is not the end of the story, student loan has interest rate that get built up ,and if you cant pay them on time or default on them, you will be penalized which will be added to the actual debt over time, and you end up realizing the student loan debt is with you forever -- you can't discharge it in bankruptcy. In fact, "Up to Our Eyeballs" notes that about 9% of Americas aged 45-64 still have student loan debt! as the case happened with At 47, John Koch who is still living with his elderly parents in Oyster Bay, Long Island. Koch originally borrowed $69,000 in 1997.Koch struggled to find steady employment and eventually he defaulted on his loans. He was immediately slapped with $50,000 in penalties. For years, he had been filling out deferment forms every six months to buy himself more time but in 2009, Sallie Mae declared him in default. At the time of this writing, Koch owes over $320,000. That sounds staggering but it's hardly unusual. Once a person defaults on a student loan, the balance grows exponentially, with interest compounding on interest, penalties and fees. By the time he "retires," in 23 years, Koch figures he will owe close to $1.9 million!. He can't get even subprime credit, he tells me, and it's not like there's any way out of his trap: student loan debt cannot be absolved through bankruptcy. That is why suicide is becoming a debt payment option. source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I could go on this topic................. ok, hopefully now you are convinced that student loan leads to suicide and is expected to increase hugely in the next few years. You should also be convinced to agree with my statement that says "on the other hand, people who opted to stay away from college or dropped out , seems [sic] to have a higher rating of success." not having an ever increasing debt on your back for the rest of your life that deprives you of a lot of things like a house, car, marriage and most importantly "peace of mind", is a huge plus in ones life. and did you know that those" successfully hired graduates" some of those hired part time (16%), have to pay back a large amount of their salaries every month to student loan for up to 10, to 20 years or even in some aforementioned cases until they are like (47-68) years old? you also did say "'uneducated people are more unemployed and earn less than their graduate counterparts" in this sentence (the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate) also you said I quoted wrongly and, 40 percent of graduates are "underemployed" not "unemployed" I think your eyes have some serious problems. I post the title of the source for you and others again to see it properly it reads"Today's students graduate from college with heavy debts, and many aren't reaping the benefits of that education "" a poll shows recent grads often find jobs that don't require a college degree. More than 40% are unemployed, and 16% are in part-time positions" here is the source again :http://www.huffingtonpost.com... look back maybe your eyes work this time. and your funny question about why I didn't mention about non-degree jobs. Because there are thousands of them if not millions to list . and there isn't simply enough space for me to do that. but to give you and idea, check this source for the 40 highest job without a degree :http://www.businessinsider.com... interestingly the title of the source completely destroys your stance on education. it reads "In today's uncertain economy, a college education no longer guarantees you a high-paying job. But on the flip side, if you don't want to go to college, you don't have to "" you can still get a high-paying job without a bachelor's degree" with all those said, I know people in my community some of them with even master degree, selling vegetables and managing grocery shops. and by the way ,not all uneducated people got rich by inheritance. that is completely false. I personally worked for a man who owned a global shipment company who had over 400 transportation trucks in operation.by his own account, he used to sell potatoes on the street when he was young. I repeat again, what is the point of wasting (4-10) years of your life in college, building up a formidable debt on your shoulders that bogs you down ,hold you back in life , brings nightmare in your dreams every night. And takes every pleasure away from you. debts that takes a life time to clear if lucky. if not then suicide would be a last dark option. I really enjoyed the debate and want the readers to evaluate both side's arguments before making decisions. I also want to thank the opposite side for his or her participation and would like to know more about him or her (nationality ,age .major.....)

Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: I'm in college and have to deal with this number of times a year as far as i know no student is able to be denied loans since it comes in when their credit score is still new and unused. The system is set up that between scholarships and financial aid most students especially with a good gpa and sat should have no problem paying for college. The money you're talking about a young uneducated worker getting is minimum wage if you worked full time (60 hours a week about the same amount as school) something no student in school will be able to keep up with you would have allocated $15,000 in a year assuming your state has a ~8$ minimum wage in Georgia where i am it's 5.15$. It's a good deal to a kid who doesn't pay for bills or meals but when you try and put it towards tuition you won't keep it for long. since the average cost to pay for a school year is around $32,405 at private colleges and $9,410 for state residents at public colleges. My personal scholarships and Federal aid for a private college pay for about 30,000$ a year which would take two years of a 14 years working a minimum wage job in some states. Those transportation options create issues like now you take time and gas money away from family and i don't know where you are from but a golf cart is not street legal in many cities and suburbs. It would not be viable transportation it also doesn't handle bad weather.

Title: Rebuttal: On contradictions Content: First and foremost, we do not agree that banks use incorrect risk assessment models for high-risk private loans (as is proven in our previous rebuttal). Furthermore, even assuming bad risk assessment, your proposed model deals with a very small amount of loans because others would still be made with bad assessment, so it is not clear why to limit ourselves to such a small part of all loans. We are extremely content that the proposition benefited from our Econ 101 lessons and finally acknowledges that their cap would prevent risky (but not excessively risky) loans from being made, because previously (in their second argument) they claimed that “by capping the interest rate on a principal sum, the total amount of money a client repays the bank, will be less than it otherwise might be”. Knowing this contradiction, we can easily explain why they think that we are contradicting ourselves. Since the proposition so sincerely believed that their policy would allow poor people to pay less in interest, we simply outlined that low interest rates in general stimulate spending, which is contrary to what they wanted in the first place. We never believed that this policy would encourage credit taking - we simply pointed out that by believing that once you cap interest rates, risky loans will be made at these rates, the proposition would be implicitly promoting more borrowing (although that would not be successful). We explicitly stated that the cap per se will not promote borrowing and we are happy to repeat that once more. Hence, the proposition sees contradictions in our line just because they are unable to see their own ones.

Title: The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder Content: University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish. [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549

Title: Bailout of US automakers Content: Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers

Title: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies wil... Content: If big lenders within the financial system go bankrupt for lack of government support, companies will be unable to raise new money and this can have a “domino effect” on the whole economy. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow money for household loans – such as a new house or a new car. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.

Title: Islamic banking system prevails over other banking systems Content: Fewer LoansUnder the Islamic banking system the lenders will be less willing to lend to small businesses because they have to take on much more risk that they have to under the mixed banking system. This means that ultimately more people will be trapped in poverty, unable to escape because they cannot get any capital to start a business. The Problem of InterestI think my opponent should be reminded that the option of default is open to those who become trapped in debt. Now this does have its drawbacks but these people are not eternally trapped in debt. Furthermore remember that accumulated interest means that more people can have loans granted to them. Also under the Islamic system when money isn't repaid on time there are a number of problems. The first is inflation, the value of money tends to decrease and because of this without charging interest banks will constantly loose money this means the economic viability for banks will be difficult.The other problem is that banks will struggle to grantee a certain amount of income which causes problems both for share prices and the maintenance of a permanent staff.

Title: Being successful in life is easier with a college education. Content: 1. My opponent makes the point that some of the most successful people did not attend college or did not graduate college. He provides a link listing the top 100 people that did not attend/graduate college. the issue with this argument is that this list is restricted to a very narrow career field. Most of the people on this list are either inventors, or founders of companies, with the exception of a designer and a few people who were successful in fields like law before it was legally required to have an education to do this. If someone did not want to go into these fields, it would be very difficult for them to be successful in life. My opponent also fails to mention that these success stories are a very small percentage of those that did not attend college. The majority of people who do not attend college are not this successful in life. There are huge numbers of people that do not attend college in the US alone, and we here very few success stories like this. The resolution also is discussing ease of success, not possibility. just because these people managed to be successful, doesn't mean it was easy. They had to work just as hard or harder to achieve success as someone that had attended college.2. My opponent argues that college leads to debt ad insecure financial standings. The source that he provides states;"Seven in 10 college seniors (71%) who graduated last year had student loan debt, with an average of $29,400 per borrower." The source I provided stated;"An Associate’s degree is worth $390,000 more than a high school diploma. A Bachelor’s degree is worth $1.2 million more than a high school diploma. A Doctorate (Ph.D.) is worth $1.7 million more than a Bachelor’s degree. A Professional (law or medical) degree is worth $2.9 million more than a Bachelor’s degree." Any one of these degrees will on average more than pay back the average $29,400 of debt that my opponent says college will give you. Which is more valuable: $29,400 in the present, or up to $2.9 million in a lifetime? Keep into consideration that saving the $29,400 in the present will not help you to earn more over a lifetime.3. My opponents first source from his third argument talked mainly about how the internship possibilities will help you in college applications and college. Also, the positions that you would intern in, generally require a college education to obtain in real life. This means that if you aren't attending college, this opportunity is of little to no value in the work world. My opponents second link is about cross cultural experiences you can gain n high school. While these are good experiences, and can help to achieve self fulfillment, they in no way can completely replace the college experience. Also, you can do both college and this type of experience, which would lead to even more self fulfillment.4. My opponent has failed to prove that college does not make financial success more easily obtainable. 5. My opponent has failed to prove that not attending college can allow you to achieve the same level of self fulfillment that attending college can give you. They have attempted to pose alternate solutions, but these could be used along with college to achieve maximum success in self fulfillment.6. My opponent has failed to prove that you can still have as many opportunities in different career paths if you don't attend college.My opponent has proven none of my points to be incorrect, and I have proven all of my opponents points to be incorrect. I can extend all of my points.I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments and thank them for the debate.

Title: MBA Content: Debt from MBA can be a major burden.

Title: Balanced Budget Amendment Content: Sorry for the misunderstanding about round one. First, to defend my own point. A BBA would slow down congress indirectly. I gave the example of approaching the debt ceiling, which, I think we can agree, is highly relevant. The deadline imposed by the debt ceiling exacerbated existing rifts within Congress. The rifts in turn slowed down decision making. What a BBA would do is act as sort of a "mini debt ceiling". As Congress approaches their limit, they will begin (or rather continue, but worse) squabbling over bills to excessive degrees. You use the example of a family in your first contention, and I think that is a suitable parallel, so I will use it as well. Let's say that the primary provider for the family (I realize it's stereotypical but I'm going to use the father) gets a bonus. At first, it's "Yay, let's buy stuff!" as the money runs out, the family has to start choosing more. Whereas in the beginning Jane could get a new blow dryer AND Johnny could get a new baseball glove, when the money starts to run low, they begin to argue over who gets it. The same thing would happen on a larger scale as the limit's approached. Now you have Republicans and Democrats fighting for the rest of the money, neither willing to concede. We know this happens because (unfortunately) very similar circumstances to what you propose recently occurred and these were the results. Introducing a BBA would be like creating a debt limit (I know it's not DEBT, but it's the same idea) that would be even more recurrent than the one existing now. Further regarding your first point, cannot a family apply for a loan? Nearly everyone, when buying a new car or house, will take out a loan for it. They don't have the $300,000 for that new colonial on the market, but they can still buy it because they can get a loan for the money. They will receive the loan because the bank trusts them to pay it back. The same things happen on a larger scale. The United States, until recently, had the highest possible credit rating, meaning people trust us to pay back what we borrow. Even when it was downgraded, it is still extremely good. As Jon Stewart points out, (paraphrasing, but it's pretty close) "We went from AAA to AA+? Why is everyone so worried? If you go out to get a porno and find out its only XX+ instead of XXX, are you really THAT disappointed?". And the fact is, we received said downgrade because of congress' inability to function effectively and efficiently under the imposition of a deadline. Experts estimate that the tipping point of the United States' debt is at about 180% of the GDP, and right now we are at around 100%. Where we are is sustainable. Japan is one of the world's strongest economies, and their debt is roughly 200% of their GDP. Your points about the acceleration of debt is a problem, but you do not account for changing circumstances. A very large portion of the increase in debt is due to the war in the middle east, and the recession. The war on terror has cost $1.3 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That cost is drastically reduced with the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and decreasing levels in Afghanistan. (By the way, that is not military spending over those years, it is money spent specifically on the war on terror and does not include domestic upkeep, aid packages, etc.) The second major cost in that period is the recession. The 2008 bailout alone cost $700 billion with $150 billion in added corollaries introduced in congress. Hundreds of billions more have been spent on stimulus packages, and other economic band aids. So we can see that rather than being a continuing exponential increase in debt, the numbers you provided in fact represent a peak . The number we need to really worry about is not in dollars but in percents. If America incurred another hundred billion in debt, we'd barely feel it. But if say Nepal incurred a hundred billion dollars of debt, they would be completely devastated. Where it is now, the debt as a percent of GDP is sustainable, and according to http://www.supportingevidence.com... is projected to level out in coming years and then decline to lower, more normal levels. Another problem with a BBA is that it makes long term spending difficult. Congress would have to account for future scenarios in determining spending projects. If they guess the GDP would be higher than it ends up being, there would be a budget shortfall that could result in painful cuts to programs we need because we cannot support them at the time, even if it just for a year. So, to reiterate my points, imposing a BBA would act detrimentally to Congress' ability to function, it is unnecessary because the current and projected debt exists at sustainable levels, and that it would cause complications in long term budgets plans. It is for these reasons that we can plainly see a BBA is not viable, recommendable, or desirable.

Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: C1P1: I contest as ludicrous the notion that employees have any control over being laid off and that the companies are forced to lay off workers. Executives often significantly increase their own pay for dumping workers on the street -- this disproves their payroll was not too costly, they merely transferred payroll to increase their own wealth by completely eliminating the income of a large number of people. Further, no regard is given to productivity when laying off workers; workers in third-world countries have much lower standards with rampant quality problems, and measure as being far less productive. An employee has no control over being laid off to be replaced with foreign workers. Changed loan: The consumer has zero power to change the terms of the loan or negotiate to have this one-sided abuse out of the contract. To suggest there is an equal footing between lender and lendee is ludicrous. Medical: If one loses one's income and cannot make any payments, it still harms credit and a person whose sole debt is medical would be discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Medical debt is inherently involuntary, unless you consider it acceptable for someone with immediate medical need to forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford the payments. C1P2: Student Loan - There is no "cheap" post-secondary education. The cost of tuition and books has increased in double-digit percentages every single year for many years now. Inflation and incomes have not risen anywhere close, especially for someone who has not yet had a degree to have a high-income position to afford persuing a degree. Further, many educational institutions give full control over a student's finances to a Financial Aid officer. There is no real recourse for a student against an incompent or fraudulent Financial Aid Officer or practices that cause a student to lose qualifying status, leaving the student with no means of completing their degree and a large loan they must find a way to repay without the wages students are impressioned to believe would result from having a degree. None of these situations are in the control of a consumer. C1P3: A person who has a high credit rating because they stole money which gave them no problem paying bills will get preferential treatment in getting hired, etc. Credit history is used by a lot of companies in the hiring process, which is one of my arguments for curtailing their use -- there is no valid use for a would-be employer to use one's credit history in the hiring process. I'm a bit disturbed that CON thinks someone who has a lot of money lying around because they stole it is a trustworthy business partner ... I surely hope CON mis-understood what he was saying. C2:1 - It is up to the voters in this debate, then, whether they accept those situations as warranting discriminatory hiring practices, housing and other private/corporate-controlled aspects of necessary life in the U.S.A. that are supposed to be protected from discrimination. C2:2 - A person chooses whether or not to commit a crime. A person has no choice for their employer reducing or eliminating their income or a lender raising their payments to an unaffordable level, or whether or not be stricken with injury or illness requiring treatment or operations they cannot afford, or whether an expensive postsecondary degree is a requirement to obtain a job. "System of credit bureaus..." 1.) Yes, they do. They have no requirement to operate differently. It doesn't matter whether its intentional on the part of the bureaus ... consider a person acquires debt, then get laid off. Its then very difficult -- and often completely impossible -- to pay debt. Since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, the person then has great difficulty in getting a decent-paying job to pay off those bills. It doesn't matter if it was the credit bureau's, employer's or loaner's intention to conspire against the person to trap them -- the conflux of the three entities is a conspiracy (intentional or unintentional) against the person. And since employers use credit history in a hiring decision, a "bad" credit history is effectively a blacklist from getting employment and for anything that uses credit scores to discriminate -- rent, car insurance, etc. 2.) Your claims were false. It is ludicrous to believe a consumer has an equal footing to set and alter terms with a debtor or has any influence in what their employer does. These are completely at the "mercy" of corporations to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing. The consumer has no choice and no negotiating power. The consumer's ability to pay bills hinges on their employer not laying them off. What power do you have against your employer to keep them from laying you off or cutting your wages versus your employer's power to cut your hours or lay you off? Its very one-sided, and it doesn't matter how "good" you are as an employee. In the end, if your employer has profit motivation to close your entire department and move operations overseas where workers are far less proficient but very cheap, they will. That is entirely out of a person's hands ... and how can you pay any bills if you have no income? In regards to bankruptcy, under President George W. Bush, the ability of consumers to go through a bankruptcy process was drastically reduced. A consumer who has lost the means to pay off their debt no longer has bankruptcy as a viable option thanks to the act. C3:1.) You have failed to indicate how they would create harm. C3:2.) I'm not sure which point I made you are claiming as baseless. C3:4.) Credit score is not a valid measure of trustworthiness nor their work ethic. Any assumptions based on the equation of credit score with trustworthiness or work ethic are false, regardless of how popular such notions are. C3:5.) I did not argue for the complete banishment of credit scores, merely for their over-use. Taking out a voluntary loan is one of the few valid uses of a credit score, though this too should be restricted against discriminating against someone for involuntary debt such as medical bills or student loan. Abusing credit scores causes unthinkable and immoral harm under any system that asserts equal, just and fair opportunity for all. AFF 1.) I need not prove credit scores are entirely wrong in all cases, merely they are over-used. I can win if a voter believes fairness and justice are important values and must take precedence over profitability and rule by the biggest purse. AFF 2.) CON has failed to understand this debate is about CURTAILING -- restricting -- the use of credit scores, not banning them altogether. I am not arguing for completely banning credit scores, merely pushing for the case that their use should be highly restricted to prevent infringements upon equal opportunity, justice and fairness. I urge CON to re-focus the debate on the topic of CURTAILING (restricting) the use of credit scores instead of banning them. CON has failed to justify using a credit scores to discriminate against people for employment, housing, etc. in circumvention of civil rights legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Someone who comes from a poor household will not have equal opportunity to make and pay loans to inflate their credit scores as someone from a wealthy household with significant un-earned capital. I put it to all that this violates the axiom "all people are created equal" and that the use of credit scores should be curtailed to help level the playing field in any situation where a person's ability to pay debt has no direct bearing or relevance.

Title: Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor Content: I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.

Title: Student financial aid should not go to for-pofit colleges Content: Greetings, I congratulate Con (aka Inquisitor) for truly making an excellent speech. To be sure, Con's speech is above averaged compared to the debaters I've argued against in the past. I am honored to be a part of Con's first debate here on Debate.org. Hopefully, this is first of many debates for Con. Likewise, I have many responsibilities to fulfill, so I will be succinct in my refutation. Con provided two main arguments in defense of his/her position. I will counter them individually. I. "Student financial aid is most definitely necessary...for people less privileged or unable to pay..." The crux of Con's argument is that underprivileged students should receive federal student aid in order to afford going to the educational institution of their choice. Thus, Con argues, for-profit colleges should not be excluded. Con, please correct me if I misrepresented you. There are two problems with this argument: 1. Underprivileged students should be able to go wherever they want regardless of ability. The problem here is that it discourages prudence in favor of excess. That these student are able to go to even one college is itself a major improvement. 2. It ignores other gov't subsidized alternatives, like community college or vocational/trade school. Additionally, I would go so far as to say that people who choose not to go to college are privileged. After all, they're not the ones who will exit school with an average of $25,000 in debt and, more often than not, a worthless liberal arts degree. II. "[For-profit] colleges are more suitable for students." The crux of Con's argument is flexibility. I am forced to agree. For-profit colleges are much more lenient than their counterparts. But why? That is where things start to get sinister. I submit that for-profit colleges are more flexible than their counterparts precisely because it encourages their students to be financially inefficient and thereby maximize the college's profits. Let me elucidate this point. Students who earn the least amount of college credit per semester with graduate the latest and will spend more money at school (because of having to attending more classes). However, student who earn the most amount of college credit per semester (including CLEP tests) will graduate the soonest and will likely spend the least amount of money at school. This juxtaposition should be a self-evident truth. Now, regarding flexibility, it makes sense that for-profit colleges would not be as strict as their counterparts because allowing students to graduate slower translates into more profit for the institution. The United States should not allows this implicit exploitation. How? By removing financial aid from for-profit colleges and, thus, removing the incentive to be inefficient with one's college years. Con's argument of flexibility actually supports my position. Having refuted Con's arguments, I await Round 3.

Title: The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed Content: In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score. I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line. 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). I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!

Title: Scrapping tuition fees could mean moving to a graduate tax where students do not need to pay anything up front. Content: The current system is surrounded by misunderstanding. This is because the debt as we know it isn't "a massive cheque" but rather a repayment of a debt as part of a persons salary over time. In effect this is something vary similar to a graduate tax.[[Nicholas Barr on why loans are better than a graduate tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/24/nicholas-barr-graduate-tax%5D%5D

Title: Saving economy outweighs moral hazard of auto bailout Content: Steven Pearlstein. "The Road to a Bailout They Don't Deserve". The Washington Post. 3 Sept 2008 - Not only are the Big Three not deserving, but to help them out of their current predicament would also set a lousy precedent in a market-driven economy where the possibility of earning great wealth is supposed to be balanced against the possibility of failure[...] And yet it is probably the wise thing to do. This is a uniquely inopportune time for these three giant companies, with their hundreds of thousands of employees and vast national network of suppliers and distributors, to be forced to go through the painful process of bankruptcy reorganization."\

Title: College should be entirely government funded. Content: I understand the crime rate issue but you have to take into account that many students who currently receive financial aid only show up to get their book checks at the beginning of the semester and during the middle. Not everyone is cut out for school. Some students are in debt sometimes not cause they wanted to go to college but had no choice but because their relatives wanted them to go.

Title: This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders. Content: Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.

Title: The cap would deprive individuals with bad credit of possibility to borrow Content: The opposition's argument here is a masterclass in flip-flopping. On one hand they support 'rationally' (we use this term VERY loosely) made risky loans, on the other they demand government-provided education for borrowers. On one hand they believe the debt spiral is not worth government intervention, on the other hand they demand more transparency in loan agreements. The reality is that cleanly spelled out theory does not capture the dangers that risky loans have for both the borrower and broader society (that third party that DOES suffer). First, the state often intervenes when people make bad decisions that have consequences for themselves (drugs, suicide, sometimes gambling, seat belt usage). We do this because: (a) rationality is very hard to prove - when someone is in a debt spiral they are *not* rational, they are desperate and act out of desperation, as our sources show (and actually as the opposition concedes when they say this is a 'last resort'); (b) those people who are making bad decisions become easy prey for people looking to bleed them dry, and thus they need state protection; (c) damages to an individual's life generally have broader consequences for families and friends who are *not* implicated in the decision making process. Second, there is tangible third party harm - the harm to society that we outlined at the beginning. Risky loaning is dangerous (as the last 12 months have shown - bankers being ABLE to make dangerous risky loans that are never going to be paid back) and undercuts savings. Third, the opposition's soft support actions (education and information and transparency) are (a) not mutually exclusive with our policy, and (b) unlikely to be able to help - information campaigns have failed, unequivocally, to prevent the massive growth of drug abuse in most parts of the world (and the spread of AIDS/HIV, and the proliferation of gambling addiction, etc etc etc). Finally, the reality is that people cannot live and survive on credit or loans, and any society that endorses this is bound to run into problems (blossoming debt crises across the world, as we cited earlier). Eventually debt will come back to bite the borrower, sooner or later. The later it is, the more deadly the venom.

Title: Why the focus should be on economy , not the debt when it comes to the federal budget Content: .. As the con side it falls on me to show why the debt that a nation owes others is one of the most important aspects in regards to federal budget and shall elaborate on the following: If you take the nation to be a person, debt would be what the first priority would be considered. No nation should think they have disposable income until they have paid off their debts. Until debts are paid off, there might as well not be a federal budget, it is the deciding factor. Thank you.

Title: Debt deal avoids a disastrous default. Content: "NECESSARY - AND BAD." Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: "The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment."

Title: People who get home loans are welfare babies! Content: I think my opponent is trying to make the case that since nobody will help you pay your home loan, Then that means you're not a welfare baby. I remain unconvinced. Does my opponent deny that most home loans since the great depression are made available through government subsidies? These loans require some form of public investment. Home loans can be streched out over a 30 or even 40 year period as opposed to the 3 to 7 years that private banks used to do, This is made possible by other peoples investment in your loan, Including taxpayer investment. Those who meet the criteria to be qualified for a home loan can do so because of these programs, Those who don't meet the requirements for a home loan still will have some of their taxes taken to help fund programs that they themselves cannot benefit from. Just as someone who does not meet the criteria for welfare, They will still have some taxes taken away to fund a government program that does not benefit them. Let talk about these stringent requirements that are needed to secure a home loan. Just a couple months ago, Congress eased banking laws that were put in place just after the housing bubble burst (Oh how easily we forget the lessons of the past). Https://www. Wsj. Com/articles/how-congress-rolled-back-banking-rules-in-a-rare-bipartisan-deal-1527030512. It happened in 87, It happened in 07, Now the pendulum has turned back toward easing banking loan rules, And that's the first domino in line to fall, Leading us on a path to more economic hardship. Before those crashes, Anybody with a face could get a loan. Who's to say that banks will not continue to prod lawmakers to convince them to roll back bank lending rules even more? After the next market crash, Who's to say those banks won't tuck their tails between their legs and give congress the poor puppy dog eyes and say, We need a bailout? I think my opponent was trying to elude to the fact that home loans aren't so easy to get because certain requirements are needed. I find that argument to be a smidge complacent. Maybe right now it's difficult, But as history has shown, Lending rules are not anchored. Just sit back and watch how much easier these loans will become to get, And be horrified at how quickly everyone will forget the lessons of the past. The US has an excellent credit rating. US bonds are considered to be a solid investment. If we don't keep our credit intact, Taxes will soar. Using our system of bonds wisely is of utmost importance. Investment in our infrastructure by selling bonds is a very good idea because interest can be made, That interest eases the amount of money taxpayers must spend to invest in things we need to invest in, I. E. Infrastructure, Our education system, And healthcare. A lower credit rating will permeate negatively in every aspect of public interest, And put added economic stress on all taxpayers. Our commitment to subsidize home loans puts an added burden on our credit rating. I am happy to hear that my opponent is doing well with his pursuit to own a home, But one thing we've learned in the last stock market crash was that nobodies jobs are truly secure during an economic downturn. Leave us not forget that in the few years that followed the housing market crises, The idea of a recession proof business was laughable. We all want to know that our jobs are secure, But we can't always count on that. When jobs are being lost up and down the board, People are going to miss payments on their home loans, It's inevitable. It doesn't make them bad people, And they can't necessarily be blamed, But sometimes it can't be helped. When our commitment to pay out on the bonds that the US has sold can't be met, Taxes will either go up to try and pay those bonds, Or taxes will go up because we can't rely on using bonds for public investment. During economic strife, The last thing we wanna hear is, It's gonna get worse because taxes are going up. The economic stress that subsidized home loans put on taxpayers, Our credit rating, And our general public interest is not sustainable. People who get home loans ARE welfare babies!

Title: Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education Content: Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality

Title: Free University Education Content: "But that is the reason we have student loans! If one gets a university place, they will almost certainly get a student loan. This means that there is no immediate financial barrier to going to university. No matter if someone is living in poverty, they will be able to go to university because of student loans. Therefore, the statement that free university education is needed to make it available and accessible to all is just not true." "No immediate financial barrier" does not mean "no financial barrier." Many sensible people aren't going to throw themselves tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for college, and, due to these risks, won't go to college. If someone gave you a choice between getting one punch in the face, or some Tylenol and two punches in the face after you took it, you might very reasonably choose one punch in the face. The same principle applies. You may very well make up the money for the student loan eventually, but until that time it can be a very crippling long-term financial burden that can severely limit one's choices in life. Many people cannot take this risk, and so are therefore unable to go to college. Adding to this point, when risk is removed from the situation, people may be more bold in courses and careers that they choose to take, which could lead to the filling of high-demand jobs that require tertiary education, such as nurses or web designers. This gives back to society as a whole, further compounding on the reasons why this benefits the public and is worthy of tax dollars. My opponent continues to insist that people with degrees will refuse to work out of their degree area. I highly doubt, especially with the student loans that my opponent advocates, that graduates would rather sink into unemployment than, probably temporarily, get a disagreeable job. My opponent uses the U.K. as a representation of the world, even though it accounts for less than 1% of the world's population. My opponent's main point seems to be that we don't want more college students. As stated above, he uses numbers exclusively from the U.K. I could attempt to prove him incorrect within the U.K. specifically, but, as aforementioned, the U.K. is not representative of the world or even the West as a whole. Unless more applicable data is provided, I will assume that the provided data and the directly corresponding arguments are not valid. This allows me to move to more cerebral aspects of why we want more people in college than my opponent seems to think that there should be. For example, my opponent says that "Furthermore, those who choose not to go to university are not necessarily less intelligent, educated or well-informed than those who do go to university, as real-world experience often develops wisdom in a more beneficial way than theoretical education does." I absolutely, totally agree with this point. However, this entire claim is completely dependent on the word "necessarily." Of course people can educate themselves to a level equal to or even higher than that of college education. However, this is not by any means the norm, especially outside of isolated fields. If people normally educated themselves more than schooling did, there would be no schooling. "If a graduate doesn't take a graduate job, then the "27000 cost of a university course is essentially wasted." Even if college had no career benefits (it does, this is hypothetical) it has benefits outside of careers. People who go to college are exposed to more viewpoints and people and ideas than are most other people, and are given the skills to think critically. Reasons such as these are why people are taught seemingly inapplicable subjects in school such as history and art and philosophy and literature: they make us better people. Going to school is not all about getting a job. It is a big part of it, yes, but not the whole thing. A citizen going to vote who has been educated on history and consequences will be able to make a better decision than someone who hasn't been. Someone who has discussed altruism in a classroom setting may be more charitable than others. Someone who has been educated in art could make someone's day by articulately comparing their visage to Nascita di Venere. Someone who has read The Catcher in the Rye may have the drive to reach out to an antisocial or depressed person and help them. Education helps us in the business world, certainly, but it does so, so much more for us. The Civil Rights Movement, anti-war movements, and other vehicles of social progression all have their roots on college campuses. Tax dollars pay for things that are much more ridiculous than this. We could raise taxes just a little and provide not only equal career opportunity for all, but make people to be better. They might not get this chance otherwise, due to the heavy financial burden that they would undertake in doing so. To quote the French philosopher Emmanuel Jaffelin, "Let us remember that in Greek, the word 'School' ('skhol') means neither client nor debt, but 'leisure.'"(1) 1-http://sedulia.blogs.com...

Title: The debtor countries knew what they were signing up for when they took the loan Content: The governments of the debtor countries knew exactly what they were signing up for when the took out the loans! Why should the loans be dropped just because they are struggling to pay? A bank wouldn't drop a customer's debt if they were unable to pay!

Title: Alternative- and more efficient- methods of funding universities are available Content: The alternatives to a graduate tax are worse: Full state funding encourages many without clear motivation or ability to enter university, leading to high dropout rates, while removing incentives to complete courses in a timely manner. The USA has a philanthropic culture absent in many other countries, meaning private colleges have large endowment funds offering a very large number of bursaries and scholarships to poorer students. Nonetheless, the individual states do fund universities and few students pay the full cost of their higher education. Elsewhere in the world the absence of state funding tends to limit access to university to the children of a prosperous elite. Even in the USA students from some ethnic minorities are much more reluctant to take on high levels of personal debt, and are therefore very underrepresented in higher education. The USA’s high level of personal bankruptcy is linked to the high levels of debt built up while at university. A graduate tax then can be seen as a happy medium between the two extremes of Full state funding and No funding whereby the student pays for the benefit of having a higher education only when they are fit to do so.

Title: AIG did not file for bankruptcy; bonus contracts still valid Content: Thomas Keeley. "In Defense of AIG Bonuses". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - "it’s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings. [...] Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again."

Title: Developed economies can handle perpetual debt. Content: Countries may avoid defaulting on their loans, but that does not mean there are no repercussions to excessive debt. Nations with better credit ratings can receive loans at lower rates because they are considered a safe investment. Higher interest rates dig a government deeper into its hole, as it must now find a way to pay back even more money. In the interest of preserving low interest rates, thereby allowing tax dollars to be more efficiently directed towards services, governments should keep their budgets balanced for a good credit rating.

Title: College students should have the freedom to choose their own courses. Content: My opponent stated that college students have options and don't have to pay for college alone as well as students who do get scholarships or grants should be responsible to manage their money and make arrangements to be able to succeed in their career path. I do not agree with this statement because many of the organizations that offer scholarships and grants are strict with how the money can be spent. In fact according to many colleges, "they deduct automatically the cost of tuition from any financial aid they extend to students. The students never receive a check." Many colleges require that the money students receive to be used only to cover expenses on books, room, board, and tuition. My opponent also stated that students are adults which is why they should be capable of managing the money they receive from scholarships, grants, and loans. The evidence I provided before proves that although students may be legally adults, they still are restricted to what they can spend the money they receive on. This validates my claim that since students are restricted to what they spend their money on, they should be careful when selecting courses for the expenses may be high and that will deprive money from other areas. Therefore, students should not have the freedom to choose their courses. https://money.howstuffworks.com...

Title: State Colleges should be free for the students that live in that state Content: Almost every young adult today is expected to have a college degree. It is a social norm in todays society. Many people have a lot to consider when applying to colleges. Things such as location, size of the school, its reputaion and its majors are things that will decide whether you will attend or not. But the most important thing that people have to consider is the cost. Whether a community college, private college or state college, this educational expense can affect families and students. Even State colleges can cost up to about $30,000 a year. This leaves students coming out of college with extreme debt. This is causing a major issue in today's society. After college, young adults are expected to live on thier own and fend for themselves. After leaving school, students realize that they will not be able to afford the expensies of living on thier own and they soon find themselves moving back at home with their parents. College is supposed to teach young adults to be independent. This is not going to be happening if they are forced to move back home as soon as they are finished getting their degree. With an average cost of $30,000 per year for college tuition, a four year degree will cost the student $120,000. This is a tremdous debt for anyone to burden, much less a young adult who has just graduated college. Adults purchasing a house take on this level of debt and then arrange for it to be paid back over twenty to thirty years. Many of the loans afforded to students are required to be paid back in much less time. How, with little to no experience to speak of, can a new graduate get a job paying enough to both support themselves and pay back this enormous debt. They cannot. So, the student ends up living at home with their parents to speed up the process of paying back their loans. If the former student gets a job paying $40,000 per year, their take home pay will be about sixty percent or about $25,000. Now if you take all of these earnings and put them towards the outstanding college loans, it will take about five years to pay back the loans. However, this is not reality so it will take much longer. Most likely, the pay back of the loans will be more like $10,000 per year. With this pay schedule, the payback is now up to twelve years. I'm also assuming that these loans carry no interest. Not likely! How can you even think of going to a bank to obtain a credit rating or another loan with this much debt on you? Other countries don't put this burden on their young adults. If education is a priority to get our economy running again the way we need it to, then the education of our youth is a top priority. That being said, how can the education of youth be a priority if the cost prohibits so many students from attending and getting a college education. In this economy, a college education is not an option, it is a requirement. By making state colleges free for students living in that state, we will make college education available to anyone who wants this education.

Title: College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens Content: My opponents central argument is that College ensures jobs and more jobs means more money in circulation. However, this is not the case as I will prove in my case. ========= Case ========= College ought not be required for two reasons: 1. It puts American citizen's into debt. 2. It is no longer the insurance for a job or future success that students were one guaranteed. 1. On the Wall Street Journal Blogs this week an alarming study by the Project on Student Debt was released. The nonprofit reports that average debt for college seniors who graduated with loans in 2008 rose to $23,200 in 2008, up from $18,650 in 2004. Roughly two-thirds of students graduate with student loans, government surveys show. Also it found that the highest debt levels were in the District of Columbia, where students graduated with average debts of $29,793, and Iowa, where students with loans carried $28,174 on average. And many economists worry that such financial challenges could hurt the earning potential of these college graduates long after the recession's end. There's also concern about whether and when these same grads will be able to save for retirement, start businesses or buy homes. However the report also doesn't calculate the impact on students (or, for that matter, parents) who use credit cards, home equity lines of credit or 401(k) loans to finance college. These tactics were likely to have been more common when many survey respondents entered college around 2004, as the housing and economic boom were gathering steam. So as we can see college voluntarily is becoming a burden to individuals, both during school and after. And in order to pay these ever increasing debts student have been forced to get more and more jobs, thus decreasing the value of education they can receive. But it is not just the Student Loans and future 401(k)s that are bogging down students, the city of Pittsburgh is proposing what appears to be a one-of-a-kind 1% tuition tax on local university and college students. Now this could be considered fair if it were not due to the fact that the money collected combined with the already more than $20 million in other taxes (on schools and students), would be used in order to pay for the city's goals and ambitions. All of this only further sinking the ignorant student into mounds of debt, ruining their lives. 2. "Just like other investments, some people are realizing that past performance does not guarantee future returns,". Lauren Asher, president of the Project on Student Debt and co-author of the paper, says. As many graduates have learned, a solid degree from an august institution doesn't necessarily guarantee a decent paying job, or any job at all. [. http://blogs.wsj.com...] [. http://online.wsj.com...] In short forcing college on individuals, expecially in these uncertain economic times, is a death sentence. We will plague our students with poor credit, an education that could not be wholly taken advantage of, and next to no possibilities for jobs. Therefore we must allow college to remain a choice to individuals as it has in the past.

Title: financial stress is part of university life Content: As much as students may moan about the mounting costs of education, what being a paying student provides is a sense of pleasure. Students will often congregate to talk about their financial worries. Some may form protest groups. However, as much as they complain about it,they find a certain satisfaction in being in such a predicament. It is almost a form of pleasure to see the loan accumulate. What it provides them with ultimately is a sense of self sufficiency which they would not6 get if University education was free.

Title: Should students as young as 14 be able to have jobs Content: If you ever really looked into student loans you will see that the teenager would have to pay of the loans that they got from the college.When the student of the college gets a loan they will need to pay back the school after that semester that they are doing.Also, some of the families cant afford getting loans because of how poor they are, with the transportation issue they could always get s ride from some one or they can have their own permit on a 4-wheeler or a golf cart, they really dont need a drivers license.