Have you ever been denied a loan or an apartment rental because of your credit score? Or maybe you've wondered why your score dropped even though you've been paying your bills on time? These questions touch on a debate that's been growing in recent years: Do credit scores really reflect our financial capabilities?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Credit Scores do not accurately measure someone's financial abilities" and comes from the Economics Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

Before we dive into the debate, let's understand what credit scores are and where they came from. Credit scores were introduced in the U.S. in the 1950s by the Fair Isaac Corporation, now known as FICO. The goal was to create a standardized way for lenders to assess the risk of lending money or extending credit to individuals.

Today, the most widely used credit scores in the U.S. range from 300 to 850. They're calculated using complex algorithms that consider factors like payment history, amounts owed, length of credit history, new credit, and types of credit used. The three major credit bureaus - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion - each produce their own scores based on the information in your credit reports.

According to a 2021 survey by Credit Sesame, 55% of Americans have been denied credit due to their credit scores. Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports that about 26 million Americans are "credit invisible," meaning they have no credit history with a nationwide consumer reporting agency and are more likely to be denied credit as compared to even those with a low credit score.

It's crucial to discuss the value of credit scores because this impacts many aspects of our financial lives. These scores determine whether we get approved for loans or credit cards, what interest rates we're offered, and even affect our ability to rent an apartment or get certain jobs. As you go through life, your credit score becomes one of the most important numbers you know, and you quickly learn how to manipulate it—what actions will improve it and what might harm it.

As an example, during the housing crisis of 2008, many homeowners were weighing the difficult decision of whether or not to stop paying their mortgages, basically stopping paying a loan that was being tracked on their credit history. As you might remember, this is when the housing bubble burst and millions of homes lost the bulk of their value practically overnight. Many found themselves "underwater," meaning their homes were worth less than the amount they owed on their loans.

Walking away from a mortgage, also known as "strategic default," causes a significant drop in credit score, making it difficult to obtain future loans for cars, homes, or even credit cards. However, foreclosures can be wiped from your credit report in 3-7 years leading to approximately 4.4 million homes foreclosed on between 2007 and 2010, according to the Federal Reserve. Its interesting to wonder how many of those were strategic decisions by homeowners knowing that they would just need to rebuild their credit history in order to get out from under an asset that lost a lot of value.

Now, let's debate!

Agree (Credit Scores do not accurately measure someone's financial abilities):

1. Credit scores don't consider income or assets. A person with a high income and substantial savings could have a low credit score if they rarely use credit, while someone living paycheck to paycheck might have a high score if they consistently make minimum payments on multiple credit cards. But of those two people which would you rather loan money to?

2. Credit scores can be unfairly impacted by factors outside of your control. For example, there are data breaches all the time that exp...

Now this is perfect timing as we head into a Presidential Election. What if every presidential candidate had the exact same amount of money to spend on their campaign? Would elections be more fair? Would voters be better informed and less swayed by fancy advertisements and lobbying? Today, we're exploring the debate around a unique proposal for campaign financing.

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive, where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending," and it comes from the US Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's dig in.

The topic of campaign finance has been a contentious issue in politics for decades. In the United States, running for president can cost billions of dollars. Candidates often rely on donations from individuals, corporations, and political action committees (PACs). The current system allows for unlimited spending by outside groups, thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

An equal campaign fund system, sometimes called "public financing," would provide all presidential candidates with the same amount of money, funded by taxpayers. This system would eliminate the need for private donations and the influence of wealthy donors, making the election process more equitable. But would it work? And is it the best way to ensure fair elections?

Campaign finance reform is a critical issue because it affects the integrity of democratic processes. The influence of money in politics can lead to unequal representation, where only those with substantial financial backing have a real chance of winning. Understanding this debate helps us evaluate how democratic our elections truly are and whether reforms could lead to more equal and representative outcomes.

Now, let's debate!

Agree: Every presidential candidate should be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending

1.Providing an equal campaign fund ensures that all candidates have the same resources, making elections fairer. It reduces the advantage that wealthy candidates or those with wealthy backers have. For instance, in countries like Canada, campaign spending is strictly regulated, and public funding is available, which helps create a more level playing field for all candidates.

2. With equal funding, candidates are less likely to be influenced by wealthy donors or special interest groups. This can reduce corruption and ensure that elected officials are more accountable to their voters rather than to their donors. As far back as 2013, Transparency.org’s Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) reported that 55% of citizens worldwide believed that their “governments [were] run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” There have been numerous studies done by organizations like the World Bank and the Varieties of Democracy Research group that have shown that countries with strict campaign finance regulations tend to have lower levels of corruption.

3. When campaign funding is equal, candidates must rely on their ideas and policies to win over voters, not just their ability to raise money. This can lead to a more issue-focused campaign and a more informed electorate. For example, in some European countries, strict limits on campaign spending force candidates to engage more directly with voters and focus on policy discussions rather than on fundraising dinners and events for the wealthy and special interest groups.

Disagree: Every presidential candidate should not be given an equal campaign fund and be disallowed any other campaign spending

1. Limiting campaign spending is a violation o...

Love this topic? Get it in the Essentials Collection Full Size Deck

Transcript:

Have you ever driven past someone living in a tent on the side of the highway? Maybe you’ve seen them asking for change on a street corner, or huddled in a doorway for warmth. It’s a sight that can spark a lot of different emotions – pity, frustration, even anger. But what about rights? Does everyone, regardless of circumstance, have the right to be homeless?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "Everyone has the right to be homeless." and comes from the Society Category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

Homelessness is a complex issue, with deep roots. For centuries, societies have grappled with how to handle those without a permanent place to live. Long ago, it was pretty normal for some people to move around and not have a fixed home. But as cities grew bigger and people started caring more about owning property, it became seen as a problem. The idea of a “right” to homelessness is a relatively new concept, fueled by a growing homelessness crisis, increase in advocacy groups and a patchwork of local and state laws.

It's not just about not having a house - it's also about human rights, how we take care of each other as a society, and personal freedom. When we talk about whether people have a "right" to be homeless, we're really asking some tough questions about how much freedom individuals should have and what responsibilities we have to each other.

I was recently watching the movie "The Beautiful Game" which is a fictional movie about a real and incredibly unique event - the Homeless World Cup that has been taking place in Italy since 2000. Homeless teams are gathered from around the world to compete in a soccer match every year. While it's not a documentary, the film highlights the systemic issues that contribute to homelessness and raises questions about societal responsibility. It's a reminder that homelessness is not just a personal issue, but a complex problem that involves inequality and lack of opportunity.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on a single night in 2020, more than 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. This number has been growing in recent years, especially in big cities.

It's important to talk about this because it makes us think about finding a balance between letting people make their own choices and making sure everyone in society is okay. It also makes us wonder if the ways we're trying to solve homelessness now are actually working.

Now, let's debate!

Agree:

1. People should be free to live how they want. Making someone live in a house if they don't want to isn't fair. This idea is based on the concept of personal liberty, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment, for example, protects personal liberty, which some argue includes the right to choose where and how to live.

2. Making it illegal to be homeless doesn't fix the real problems. It can actually make it harder for homeless people to get jobs or homes later because they end up with a criminal record. In fact, a 2019 report from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty found that 72% of surveyed cities had laws restricting camping in public. These laws often lead to fines or arrests, which can make it even harder for homeless individuals to improve their situation. You can see the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees the value in this argument. In Martin v. City of Boise in 2018 they ruled that it's unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside on public property when they...