Resolved: The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt.

"All" is the whole debate

The resolution calls for total forgiveness, and both teams should fight on that ground instead of the means-tested versions in the headlines. Pro’s best use of "all" is that universality produces the macro effects (household formation, entrepreneurship, a narrower Black-white wealth gap), while means-testing recreates the bureaucratic traps that made existing relief programs fail the people who applied. Con’s best use of "all" is that totality makes the policy regressive. The largest balances belong to graduate-degree holders with the highest lifetime earnings, so a blanket write-off gives the most to doctors and lawyers while the majority who never went to college help pay for it.

The moral-hazard problem going forward

Forgiveness looks backward, but borrowing continues. Con’s systemic argument is that wiping the slate tells future borrowers that debt is provisional, tells colleges that pricing discipline is unnecessary, and tells Congress that the lending system needs no repair. Balances grow back within years, now with the expectation of another cancellation. Pro can’t ignore this. The credible answers pair forgiveness with the claim that it forces a conversation about financing reform (you can’t rebuild on millions of defaulted loans), and point out that moral-hazard logic proves too much, since we don’t refuse to treat the sick to discipline the healthy.

Who holds the debt

The distribution fight is an evidence fight, and precision wins it. Averages mislead in both directions. Median balances are modest and defaults concentrate among non-completers with small balances, who are Pro’s people. Weighted by dollars, the debt concentrates among advanced-degree earners, who are Con’s. The team that teaches the judge this distinction and then weighs by the metric that favors it (people helped or dollars spent) controls the topic’s core clash.