https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3 Post at least 2 comments/responses en-us 2021-04-16 11:47:59 UTC 2021-04-16 12:53:04 UTC hello@padlet.com dgolding3 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1424962285 So far, which team has presented the strongest, most persuasive argument so far, and why?]]> 2021-04-16 11:49:04 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1424962285 lkeilty221 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425103554 I think that the against argument is stronger. $1.7 trillion is a LOT of money, and to just forgive it is losing a lot of money that the country could use. I think that their evidence and numbers made a lot of sense, while the other side didn't use a lot of numbers and seemed to mainly just be making claims. For instance, can you imagine if people making hundreds of thousands of dollars just didn't have to pay their student debt? They can pay it and it doesn't make sense to me to just forgive it. I also like that they offered an alternative solution of finding ways to make colleges and universities more affordable in the first place.  ]]> 2021-04-16 12:38:42 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425103554 hwasserman22 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425124522 The against team presented a stronger and more persuasive argument.  The against team used more evidence from statistics to back up their claims and support their idea that a more nuanced solution is needed rather than cancelling the student debt.  The brought up where most of the debt is and why the people with the most debt who are most likely to pay it all off should not be forgiven of it because it will not benefit the people the for team agrued it would benefit the most.  Unlike the against team, the for team did not use much evidence but made a lot of claims that could have been true. The against team also had more variety in the argument and mentioned multiple aspects of the issue while the for team stayed centered around one aspect of it. ]]> 2021-04-16 12:44:25 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425124522 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425138410 The team arguing against forgiving student debt had a stronger argument. The argument for forgiving it seemed to be appealing to people who get their information from mainstream media sources and think that student debt only affects low income people. The first and third speakers did not even acknowledge how much more student debt people making a lot of money have. The people arguing for student debt fully acknowledged the other side and had good counterarguments, such as talking about the intrinsic problem with the system that made it bad for lower income people.]]> 2021-04-16 12:48:08 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425138410 cbeakley22 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425148814 The against team provided a stronger argument because of the type of evidence they used. The For team reference many laws and bills that are not intuitive or well known, unless you are very active in the topic. The against team, however, used many statistics and numbers regarding money. I believe I can safely assume that most people have some sort of connection to money. Thus, even though I am new to this topic, the evidence the Against team provided was much more accessible to me as an uneducated reader. Additionally, the Against team nicely diminished the shock of the number $1.7 trillion, which the For team seemed to used for shock value. ]]> 2021-04-16 12:50:53 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425148814 rgrundy221 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425152515  I think that the against argument is stronger because it shifts the focus from the entire 44 million people to the individual. They argue that it is your own responsibility to pay the loans back. They start off by saying that if the U.S was to cancel debt, nationally we would fall farther into debt. And as for the debt that low income families may have he presents a solution. If the U.S was to cancel national debt they should do so for the people in need of it, as millionaires or higher income families would benefit less. ]]> 2021-04-16 12:51:48 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425152515 minman221 https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425154844 The against team's argument is stronger. They addressed seemingly everything in a concise, logical manner, providing facts to support their argument. They effectively argued against the FOR team, by tearing down their main point that student loan forgiveness will disproportionately benefit POC debt takers. However, they did not provide a solution to the problem that was clear to understand, just general statements on "better" things to do, especially for wealthy college goers. They proposed things like investing cash in the market while taking a loan out for college, but that only works if you have large positive wealth in the first place. Overall, they argued better than the FOR group.]]> 2021-04-16 12:52:24 UTC https://padlet.com/dgolding3/bcrjibwdda19zlp3/wish/1425154844