Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The penny should be immediately phased out of circulation. (Kleptin Tourney)

Given the current demands on my time, this argument may not be as detailed as I would like, due to the constraints of time and mental focus. Before I proceed, I offer my apologies for any gender-related errors and assure that such mistakes will not be repeated. If my comments regarding the potential bias of the Proponent's sources seemed harsh, I apologize; the internet can often distort the tone of communication. I am addressing the core arguments and clarifying any potential misunderstandings.

Counter-plan: The counter-plan is not inherently abusive. The Proponent did not argue that it was unconditional, nor did they hold me to that standard. The only possible offensive arguments that the Con could have raised against the counter-plan would have been in the context of "abuse as a voter," which the Proponent did not pursue, hence the counter-plan remains viable. However, I will address the abuse arguments for completeness.

1. It is not abusive to introduce the counter-plan without specifying the exact metal to be used in place of the penny. This is akin to a Congressional debate team not specifying who would propose their plan, as the focus is on the plan's general benefits. The comments section ensures that any abuse is checked, just as cross-examination in real-life debate allows for clarification.

2. The Proponent's case:

   a. Consumer Confidence: The absence of a definitive statement from the Minister does not discredit the evidence presented. No counter-evidence has been provided to refute the claims. The argument that the removal of the penny could harm sales similarly to the removal of other coins remains valid.

   b. Cheaper Transactions: The "cost" of the counter-plan is negligible compared to the next cheapest form of payment, which is four times more expensive. The calculations in question, if accurate, would indicate significant economic harm, which has not been demonstrated.

3. NACS and Walgreens: The statistics provided by these organizations, which support the elimination of the penny, may be biased. I have requested the sources of these statistics, and without proper citation, the evidence cannot be considered valid. This undermines the majority of the Proponent's offense, except for the China contention, which I will address.

4. Brightline: The Proponent's argument regarding the debt problem lacks a clear connection to the resolution. If the plan only saves a portion of the required funds, the problem cannot be used as a reason to pass the plan. The Proponent

How unfortunate, my opponent has forfeited. Well, I might as well make an argument anyway.1. CostsThe Death Penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, we should not use it.2. Innocent PeopleIf you throw an innocent person in jail, you can yank them out again if you can show their innocence. You can't bring back someone from the dead.While these arguments are poor of quality, they are still more than what my opponent provided.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Allow me to premise this debate by welcoming you to DDO! I am impressed at how well you've framed this debate given that it is in fact your first debate. I've seen you comment on a few debates, so I want to also say that I appreciate that you've taken an effort to aquatint yourself with the customs and practices of this site before officially beginning to debate. In case there is anyone who does not know what my opponent is referencing when he speaks of a trillion dollar coin, here is an article from CBS which explains it[1] [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... That said I would like to bring to the judges attention that my opponent places conflicting burdens on me in this round; he at first claims that I may start this debate after he offers three clarifications for the round to operate under and then at the end of his round 1 he claims that I should use this round solely to present the premise by which the Con's advocacy will operate under. I'm going to assume that the later burden is the one I should write this round under, so I will not provide a full argument at this point. If this was not my opponent's intention then I urge the judges to keep my analysis here in mind and not dock me in their vote. That said I reserve the right to expand upon the following premise and flesh the argument out to much deeper degree. in the following rounds I make the assumption that the aforementioned trillion dollar coin would be the size of a regular coin, and not something of a much bigger size. My position will be twofold- First; Since these coins were created for a specific purpose and not distributed to the general public, they would be useless to you as leverage for gains of power. The moment you tried to use it you would be recognized as a thief and incarcerated. and Second; The coin's value would not be intrinsically related to the coin, but would be representative of wealth elsewhere. Since the Federal Government would be on the lookout for you there would be nowhere you could use the coin without drawing negative attention to yourself. These are the two premises under which I will build my argument in following rounds. I look forward to an entertaining round, and I hope any readers enjoy this debate as well!

Fellow debate.org members, lend me your attention. My opponent has failed to address my round 1 arguments. That implies that all points I made in round 1 stand. My R1 points were that repealing the 16th would take effort and would cause harm to the system. We would have to go through the process of repealing it, and the process of making a whole new tax system. Also, the tax system would not be able to have the current functionality without the 16th amendment. My opponent has made no points, since he explicitly chose not to make arguments in round 1 and forfeited his chance to make any points in round 2. My opponent has NO arguments, I have SOME arguments, and these arguments work in my favor as far as this debate is concerned. Therefore, it is wise to vote CON on this debate. Also, note that my opponent neglected to include a period at the end of the single sentence he contributed to this debate, thus he does not deserve your vote on the issue of grammar. Thank you, and I am sorry this debate did not end up having more meaningful content.

I'm no economics expert, I'll say that up front. However, from all that I've read, I don't think it takes one to realize that the Federal Reserve is hurting the US economy, and has done so ever since its creation in 1913. It pains me to see the OWS protesters going on about capitalism and free market as the reason for disproportionate wealth. I will prove that it is the Fed that is responsible for such inequality, along with other measures which drastically hurt the US economy as a whole. From this contention, I will prove that all the problems caused by the Federal Reserve are grounds for it to be removed and replaced by a more preferable system like the gold standard. ConditionsPro must prove that there are compelling reasons to end the Federal Reserve, and that its abolition would provide a more stable economy. Con must prove that there are compelling reasons to keep te Fed, due to the fact that its removal would hurt the econoy even more.

The issue with your argument is that you assume that every ticket is used. Each tix is 17 "Robux" (1). If we do math under the same assumption that there are 1 million active player in one day, and we assume that each player makes 10 tickets a day. that would be 10 million tickets. Divided by 17 makes 588235 Robux makes Roblox "lose" only 5,882.35 dollars. A little more than half of what pro claims. This money does not scar the massive company of Roblox. and there is no chance they would go bankrupt. The value of the domain "Roblox.com" is 826 million dollars(2). The games on Roblox are created by young independent developers, meaning that Roblox does not pay them.I believe that Roblox should not have removed "tix" because most players are in the elementary school demographic and cannot make their own money. Tix was a way for these young kids to get some of the in game items in Roblox. Roblox's reason on removing tix do not matter, the company simply wanted more money. As I have explained, the company does not lose much money and is already massive.Roblox's decision to remove will have some negative effects for the player that can afford to pay for "Robux". Because Robux is the only currency, players are now forced to buy them. This leads to more in circulation, which leads to inflation. INflation means that each Robux is worth less, meaning that people need to buy more to get the same value. Roblox then gets more money. the company wins and the players lose.Citations1.http://blog.roblox.com... 2.http://www.worthofweb.com...

I accept. And I disagree with the Instigator's argument. We should leave Harambe behind.Let me explain. Harambe died over 5 months ago. Security was weak, so a child snuck in Harambe's area. The security guards then shot Harambe in an attempt to save the child. All people are now is "y u kill harambe" and "dks out for harambe". Stop it people, he's dead. It's done with. Let's stop worrying about that Gorilla. Instead, let's increase security for our zoos.Think about it: To not leave the complaints behind... what good is that doing? Instead, leave Harambe behind, and focus on the new gorillas, try to make their cages better. Stop worrying about last month, and start worrying about today. What happened then, happened then. Look forward, not back. Jirachi would be proud if you looked towards your future.

Pro : It should be. Con : It should be not.

Ok, so we abandoned the gold standard topic and switched completely to the Federal Reserve, I will quickly and efficiently slam your argument out of the debate so we can return to the gold standard subject, this does in fact tie in to what we were talking about, though I don't want to spend the rest of the rounds on one aspect of the issue, so here is my sum down of your points please notify me on comments if I missed anything; 1. Inflation is good for the economy. 2. Deflation is bad for the economy. 3. Recessions are good for the economy. 4. Booms are bad for the economy. 5. Inflation increases interest rates. Here is my rebuttal; Inflation is bad for wage workers, the minimum wage in 1950 was 1$, 1$ in 1950 is worth 24$ now, inflation destroys the middle class, my next point is that inflation cannot go on forever, it is not feasible for us to go on a dollar that is worth 1", but going off a dollar that is worth 100$ is feasible as it has happened before, and under a good economy. Deflation is bad for the economy, obviously any rapid change in an economic system Wil have negative effects, any rapid change will do so, gradual deflation will increase the minimum wage as 8$ will be worth more. A recession such as 1873 or 1893 turns beneficial for the economy in the long run, it eliminates fraction reserve banks, while conservative banks such as Isais Hellmans surplus reserve banks ( he kept 150% of what was in his clients accounts) survived, and had an increased trust because they survived, this was good because it stopped an already coming disaster, whereas the federal reserve caused the economy to overheat in the first place. I don't see how th at last one is relevant. Now that I destroyed your side of this aspect on this debate, we can continue on the gold standard, if you have a rebuttal, say so on comments and I will send you the link to the federal reserve debate.

First off, not all senior citizens are "ticks of society." There are obviously thousands of elderly that do better for the economy than you and me. Very few of the. Are put in elderly homes. There are more independent senior citizens than there are one who need assistance. They shouldn't be alive just because they don't work? They should die because they serve no use, is what you mean I suppose. So in that case children should be euthanized. They're useless beside the fact that they might go on and be of importance. I mean I could give you every example of just useless people in modern society. They're everywhere. Not just the senior citizens. Going along with your ideology, culture infested people should also be euthanized. Hillbilly and rednecks should be euthanized as well. They don't do anything for the economy just like the elderly. They don't go on to do anything useful. They're just a tick on society. Lets euthanize them! Young gangster kids too? All they do is steel and provoke violence right? Murder is the answer? Hobos too? Anyone who loses their home or whom that is poor? They're just in the streets or living off welfare. EUTHANIZE! What about criminals? Someone steels something from a Wal-Mart, sent to jail for weeks or months. Should they too be seamlessly killed? See the human race is above sub petty acts of not dealing with problems. Euthanizing senior citizens would be a very harsh case of social Darwinism. No one wants to die just because they turn old. Think of growing up knowing that we plan on killing you the minute you were 70 or 80. It's just not sensible. Give a case of how that isn't just plain randomness and barbaric.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The US Penny Should be Retired from Circulation
One of the reasons I didn't feel compelled to formally respond is that you didn't cite the origin of your facts, particularly the date. You criticized me for using estimates from 2011, yet your source here was from 1990. Let's consider why consumers and merchants, on average, wouldn't suffer a loss, let alone $600 million: A store owner sells a few items totaling $11.05, with a sales tax of 7.5%. After applying sales tax, the total amount due is $11.88, making the cash due $11.90. In this scenario, the merchant gains 2 pennies! The same merchant sells items totaling $11.93, with the same 7.5% sales tax. The total becomes $12.82, or cash due $12.80. The merchant loses 2 pennies, but it balances out with the previous gain! Cost of Minting
Apologies for the outdated information; that was my mistake. However, it still costs more to produce a penny than it's worth, making my point valid. Contrary to your assumption, the cost isn't declining. Your source, which you deemed reliable, states: "A new report shows the cost to produce a penny was 1.7 cents in the 2014 fiscal year. That’s down from 2.4 cents in 2011 but still more than face value. And that won’t change." The stock price of zinc (not copper, as pennies are primarily zinc) has risen over the last five years and is currently climbing. How can you argue that the penny's utility outweighs its cost? Charitable Donations
It appears you're dancing around this issue. First, my statement is verifiable and not contradictory. The quote was: "The penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel (5-1)." The meaning is clear: a nickel is worth five pennies, so a donation of one nickel always beats a donation of four pennies. On the other hand, you have no proof and assume people won't donate nickels or will be stingy. As I outlined earlier, such assumptions portray charitable people negatively. Australia is another country that abolished the penny in 1992. Despite the absence of pennies to donate, charitable

The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.

I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage. Your response?

I affirm: The Minimum Wage should be abolished. [Contentions] Contention I: Free Market Cycle In the cycle of the market both employer and employee benefit. Why? Because each sacrifices for what they value more. E.g. A person may come looking for a job and the employer offers $2. The person refuses. Apparently the person values his own time, more then the money being presented. Flip this. A person offers to work for $5. The employer refuses, because he values the money over the time of the possible employee. The cycle of the market dictates what a person values or not. A person does not have to accept the offer of they do not want it. Visa Versa, the employer can reject a person as well. The minimum wage just puts pressure on a company to pay more then what may be necessary. Contention II: The Minimum Wage Increases Outsourcing According to Barron's, the Minimum Wage only increases outsourcing to foreign nations. E.g. China and India. Why would a company want American people were it is necessary to pay a minimum? They could easily send their jobs to China were people work for $1 a day. The Minimum Wage only takes jobs wawy from the US, which further hinders the market. [Rebuttal] "I think that the minimum wage should not be abolished because I think everyone deserves a fair wage." My Response: What makes a wage fair? If my opponent can't answer this question, then he should not win this debate. Furthermore, I theorize that the fairness of a wage should be determined by the cycle of the market and the free market itself rather then the government. Whenever the government butts in on issues of the market, they usually only make it worse. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Pro has decided that he is not up to posting his argument. So I must assume it is a verbose, and consummate argument that would be completely unrefutable. Why else would he be so tired as to not be capable to press lettered keys in rapid succession?So, I will give this round to Pro. He obviously earned it. I will get him in the next round however. You just wait.

"And it is not a good idea to stimulate the economy by just throwing more money into it. It never works. Which is a major flaw in Keynesian economics."That is an incredibly broad and sweeping claim. You're not going to convince anyone here, no matter how fanatically-devoted to Ron Paul they are, that Keynesian economics is wrong by dismissing out of hand their monetary prescriptions. The empirical evidence (unemployment in all sectors and yet very little change in nominal wages shows that sticky prices and wages, combined with a fall in investment and consumption spending are responsible for our woes) shows, strongly, that the recession was caused by a fall in aggregate demand, which was caused by a fall in investment spending thanks to the financial sector. Now it is true that short-term interest rates are close to zero, but long-term interest rates are not. 10-year treasury bonds currently 2%, which means that monetary stimulus, if the Fed can convince the bond markets that it will aim for a larger inflation target (say 4% instead of the usual 2%) can work even when short-term quantitative easing can't. "The government says it is at 3.1%."There are several measures of inflation, the CPI being one among many. There's the GDP deflator, which shows strong deflation since 2008, there's the employment cost index, the fisher index, the billion price index, etc. which show that, since 2008, prices have fallen. "But the formula they use to calculate it is by using products that people rarely buy, like cars, and houses."And so what if an individual does not buy cars or houses very often? Millions are being sold every year, and the quantity and velocity of money will be reflected in the prices that are charged for such services. "The real inflation rate is actually above a whopping 8%. This includes all products that you buy everyday like milk and cereal. This formula is called the EPI (Everyday Price Index)"The so-called EPI is fatally flawed, especially when using it to judge monetary policy, because the factors which are responsible for the increases in the price of gas (and, thus, food) are real supply side factors, not demand-side factors in America. "And, there’s really no way of telling whether Congress taxes more than the FED because there’s no real straight story on how much the FED creates a year"You can check the Fed balance sheet any time. "and there’s also not a straight story on how much the government receives in taxes per year."The IRS publishes the amount it collects in taxes every year. "Also the FED creates money depending on the economy. Of course it does. That's how the FOMC works. It sets a short-term interest rate target by buying or selling assets on the open market. When the interest rate is below the target rate, the FOMC sells assets, the most popular being short-term treasury bonds. If interest rates are too high, the federal reserve buys assets. "In 2008, the FED gave the government 7.7 trillion dollars for the bailout." Eh, no. The Federal Reserve loaned several trillion dollars to private investment banks and other depository institutions and other central banks. It didn't give money to the federal government. "And that was in secret."Then how do you know about it?"That is way more than the government takes in with taxes, which from what I’ve seen, averages around 2 trillion a year. There is really no way of telling how much money they pump into the economy." Again, the Federal Reserve injects money into the economy by buying assets. Loans are last-resort by banks. "But another problem is that the government spends way more than it takes in. The Federal Reserve creates most of its money from debt."Sure, most of the assets that the Federal Reserve buys are treasury bonds, but it has also bought other assets. "This means that our money is basically backed by debt."We do not have a fixed exchange rate monetary policy, which means that our money isn't backed by anything. Money is just a convenient, universal medium of exchange. But treasury bills are an asset. You really can have treasury bills in your portfolio and then sell them and use the money to buy stuff, as in output. Money really does create output in the economy. "It might seem good at some points, but that’s only because all of this money is just credit. Bad credit."That doesn't follow at all. "And the reason that Austrian economics sometimes use examples from hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years ago, is because, there’s only so many variations of government."That definitely does not follow at all. Variations of government, therefore we need to use data points which are hundreds of years old and shrouded in obscurity? You're seriously going to tell me that inflation caused the downfall of the Roman Empire when we have absolutely no GDP figures with which to tell our stories? The Byzantines didn't have an IRS or Bureau of Labour Statistics. "Every school of thought has to base its knowledge from somewhere, and most of the time, its from hundreds of years ago."Really? You're REALLY going to claim that every school, even the Neo-Keynesian school's models are based on data points which are hundreds of years old? You really think that Keynesian econometricians use data from the recent past?

" 1970 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." [2]It has been said before that 'In God We Trust' on American currency is not a religious act. This is not to discriminate against any group of people or their beliefs but simply to provide symbolism of patriotism"Immediatly there are some problems here. 1. No rational has been given as to why this is so. 2. Her argument dodges the actual point. It did not address the definition of a second class citizen, nor did it address the fact that the money was lying in saying that all Americans trust in god. 3. There is also the fact that even if we assumed some points were given to show why this is so, the Court is not always 100% correct in it's rulings. Therefore my point still stands. "Christians would also feel discriminated against for you taking it off? (Or anyone who believes in God, for that matter) This is to assume that 'In God We Trust' was a sign of religion, which it is in fact, not" The problem with *this* argument is that I never said atheists are all feeling discriminated against. I said they would be defined as second class citizens, which you failed to address. This is also not justification for it. Saying "in god we trust" Is similar to saying "no one in America trusts in god". It does not matter if someone is offended if you take it off. "You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America. I'm sorry but I've never heard of anyone saying that they weren't friends with an Atheist because 'In God We Trust' is on the American currency" 1. Not true. Please don't ignore my definition and actually address the argument. 2. I am An atheist 3. Personal experience fallacy. Point Four 4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency. "To elaborate a bit on my third point I would like to say that the only person I have seen so far being offended by our United States motto are the Atheists (Though I will acknowledge any evidence for any other minority group) As you have said yourself America is only made up of 5% of Atheists. This is not to say that they don't matter and their opinion should be pushed aside, but this is to say that not everyone will be happy with any decision the government makes. In 2006 the Senate reaffirmed 'In God We Trust' as the official national motto of the United States of America with a vote. The vote came out to be 396-9. [2] And seeing how it would be completely absurd to say that Atheists never got a job or were able to enter into school because of this national motto I still see no huge reason as to why it would be imperative for the national motto to be taken off of our currency. " Con is now appealing to popularity which is a well known Logical Fallacy. I wish I had more time, but. I have less than a minute!

My oppenent is a worthy foe and i respect whoever they are but The death penalty needs to stay.Yes i will admit that innocent people have been executed but Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row.ONE IN 25 SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE U.S. IS INNOCENT, Factors leading to wrongful convictions include: Inadequate legal representation Police and prosecutorial misconduct Perjured testimony and mistaken eyewitness testimony Racial prejudice Jailhouse "snitch" testimony Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence Community/political pressure to solve a case List of Pros of Death Penalty 1. Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole. Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. 2. It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. 3. The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase. As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. 4. It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. 5. Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. http://greengarageblog.org... http://www.amnestyusa.org...

Hello, This is my Government (Pro/For) Constructive in which I will present my main arguments. Definitions: Pen: "Aninstrumentforwritingordrawingwithinkorsimilarfluid" -http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1]Pencil: "aslendertubeofwood,metal,plastic,etc.,containingacoreorstripofgraphite,asolidcoloringmaterial" -http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]Better:"Greaterinexcellenceorhigherinquality" -http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]Resolutional Analysis:In a resolutional analysis, a debater explains the resolution in a way that makes it easier for the judges/voters to understand. I would like the judges/voters to understand that this debate in not necessarily about what is, but what should be. That does not mean we cannot bring up applications and evidence from "now", but I want you to keep that in mind, judges/voters. Value:In a debate round, a value is used to measure the resolution so we can understand it better. In other words, it makes it so a debater can show the judges why their side of the resolution is better.My value for this round is utility. Utility is defined as "thecapacityofacommodityora servicetosatisfysomehumanwant." -http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] Utility is the highest value in this round for three reasons, the more you can utilize something, the more efficient you are; the more you can utilize something, the more you can use it in different ways; and the more utility something has the more satisfaction or completion can be provide. I will be expanding in my contentions one and two Note: A contention is congruent to and argument, or why, in this case, pens are better than pencils. Contention I: Pens Have More Applications Than PencilsPens have more applications than pens because they are used in many different situations. Pencils are only good for writing notes, pens, however, can be used in economics, because you need permanent confirmation of transactions and in home situations, the ink will not rub off or wash out easily. Pens can also serve as styluses for electronic devices. There are pens that serve as self-defense weapons, reading lights, and bookmarks that will not fall out. As we can see, pens have many more uses than pencils, just one reason why pens are have more utility than pencils. Contention II: Pens Provide More Comfort Than PencilsPens can be shaped in ways more ergonomically conformative to the hand. Pencils, since made of wood, cannot be, unless you expend great time, effort, and funds. This makes pens less likely to cramp ones hand, making usage more efficient. Pens also make less sound when writing, making less noise and making people able to focus more, utilizing time better. As a bonus, you can chew on pens a lot more without ruining them, with pencils, however, one bite and your shaft might break. Conclusion:As we can see, pens are much better than pencils. Pens provide more comfort and have more applications than pencils. Pens should clearly win this debate round.

Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled "Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state "Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete." {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

We should consider phasing out the penny.
A recent survey indicates that a significant number of Americans are worried about the potential costs associated with a rounding system if the penny is discontinued. The poll, conducted by Americans for Common Cents, reveals that the majority of respondents support keeping the penny in circulation, especially when they are informed of its importance to charitable causes. Most participants expressed substantial concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. "These findings underscore the steadfast backing the penny maintains among the American populace," stated Weller. "Americans comprehend that eliminating the penny would result in a rounding process that could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in increased prices. Present and future generations deserve to live in a nation where a penny saved is indeed a penny earned."
The survey results showed that:
* Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation.
* Only 12.6% agree that the penny should be removed from circulation when informed about the millions of dollars in pennies donated to charities annually.
* 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash transactions, businesses might raise prices.
* 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and instituting a price rounding system.
An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, a Professor of Economics at Penn State University, supports these concerns. He discovered that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in the United States, which he estimates would cost consumers over $600 million annually. Polling results over the past eight years demonstrate the extensive support the penny enjoys among the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found that 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable outcomes. "Maintaining the penny in circulation will prevent an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people desire," said Weller. "It's just common sense." Americans for Common Cents is a diverse coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to preserving the penny. The coalition was established in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, consisting of 507 men and 502 women by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3%. [source link]

My opponents argument seems to be centereed around privitizing the U.S. postal service. This would be disatrous and would not work. This would not work for many reasons. "I would say two things to this. The first is that the competition between companies to compete for customers would keep the price down. Second I would propose that perhaps the U.S. government could put a price limit to keep this from happening. One or both of these null the quoted point." This would not happen. The buisnesses would problably agree on a price that is higher than the one we currently have then they would keep it in that general area. Another reason that the price would go up is that the buisness would need to make a proft. "To this I would say that the U.S. government could still pose laws and even insure it. Although I would think that private companies could still insure the goods perhaps even better than the government because of competition." This is absolutly bogus. Rather than the quality of the U.S. postal service that we currently have, if privitized the quality would go down for a number of reasons. 1)the buisnessees would have to cover costs by cutting down on quality. 2)the system would not be held up by government spending. Now, my opponent has pointed out how the U.S. poistal service consumes more money than it returns. This is true. But it also provides a quality that would not be had if this whole thing where privitized. Also, what would happen to all the current U.S. postal employees? They would be fired which would add to an already troubled economy. What would happen to the buildings and the trucks and the tools? They would rot away into nothing. The moeny we already put into them would be wasted. I will offer a final reason as to why we should keep the U.S. postal service. Interaction with other countries. Our postal service official delivers and recieves mail from other countries. The postal service is so entertwined with our interactions with other countries that to privitize it would be repugnant because it would require foriwghn countires to use a privite buisness rather than government buisness. In conclusion. The U.S. postal service should nto be shut down. It should still stand as an effieiecnt system and as a service to the people of the United States of America.

"One argument of my opponent's is that the millitary wants to stay in Iraq. So who do you agree more with General Patraeus, or the civilians,and now even Iraqi Prime Minister Malliki?" My Response: I agree with the military because they are the ones actually fighting. They know whats going on, they have the strategies. The US people and politicians don't know exactly what is hapeening. Therefore, I believe that the US its soldiers and it's commanders/generals should be the ones to say when we should withdraw or not. "The words "strongly opposed" are strong, and indicate civilian misery. Is it moral to ignore a rate of 82% strong opposition?" My Response: The words strongly oppsoe arent coming from the people themselves. Also, this argument is a logical fallacy. Specifically argumentum ad populum. "Besides the argument of General Patraeus is equivalent to the argument of George W. Bush, and from the past, Lyndon B. Johnson. Of course the Millitary says they want to stay in Iraq, the Millitary leaders wanted to stay in Vietnam. My point is that the Millitary as the only supporter of Bush is a group that allways would like to stay at war." My Response: Ok, and look what happened when we left Vietnam. More then 1,000,000 Vietnamese were killed by the Communists. It seems that the military knew when the time was right and wrong to withdraw. "As to the argument that those 4,124 troops would have died in vain, what would you prefer, the lives of their friends and comrads, or a cause that 64% of Americans say is lost?" My Response: you like to jump around in your arguments don't you? These 4,124 people would have died in vain if victory is not taken. The soldiers know about their own friends and comrads. And I see you like to throw American populous stats out. 80% of the SOLDIERS not jsut generals believe we should stay. "I noticed CiRrO mentioned some of the stances on Iraq, Obama v McCain. So I will once again ask CiRrO and the judges, is it more expensive to withdraw immediatly, or stay in Iraq for one hundred years?" My Response: My stance isn't that we stay a hundred years. It is gaining a victory and using soft partition. "As I said earlier, including postwar costs were at about three trillion dollars of war debt in five years. 5,000 dollars a second is being spent. It costs the government tens of thousands of dollars to deploy one soldier" My Response: I have already explained that withdrawing without soft partition would be more costly. "Another of my opponents counter arguments is about Iraq being more important than our international standing. This seems to be the theme of my opponents argument: The morality of Iraq's best interests is more important than our own. This is why it's an obvious Pro ballot." My Response: It is better for us that we stay. Our international standing really means nothing. My opponent is making unwarranted claims. Essentially, we must finish what we started. ============================================================================== Extensions: Extend all these arguments since they went unrefuted/dropped by my opponent in his last round. Therefore, they extend for all remaining rounds. 1) Contention I: Humanitarian/Moral Reasons A. Civilian deaths by withdrawing B. Fix what we started C. Soldiers die in vain 2) Contention II: The Success of the Surge 3) Contention III: Iranian Threat 4) *My opponent didn't neatly go down the flow so I can't see what else he dropped. If you the reader finds something he dropped just make a mental note. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

I thank Con for his opening argument, I shall start shortly with my arguments. 1. The Letter is an necessary letter. The letter Q is amongst rarely used letters in the English alphabet. In a study by Samuel Morse (inventor Morse Code), Mr. Morse wanted know how he could get the simplest code out of using the most commonly used words in the English language. He made a chart afterwards documenting the most commonly used letters to the least commonly used. In the first column to the chart he put the letter itself, in the second column he put a percentage meant to represent the prevalence of the word in English, and in the last column he made a scale proportion with the least common letter of the English language (Q) representing 1. The chart is seen below: E11.1607%56.88M3.0129%15.36 A8.4966%43.31H3.0034%15.31 R7.5809%38.64G2.4705%12.59 I7.5448%38.45B2.0720%10.56 O7.1635%36.51F1.8121%9.24 T6.9509%35.43Y1.7779%9.06 N6.6544%33.92W1.2899%6.57 S5.7351%29.23K1.1016%5.61 L5.4893%27.98V1.0074%5.13 C4.5388%23.13X0.2902%1.48 U3.6308%18.51Z0.2722%1.39 D3.3844%17.25J0.1965%1.00 P3.1671%16.14Q0.1962%(1) The letter Q is rarely used, it can be replaced by more commonly used letters (this will be elaborated in the succeeding arguments) 2. The letter Q can be easily replaced. The letter Q can be replaced by the combination of the letters "k" and "w", for example it is spelt "Kwanza" and not "Quanza". The letter Q in many other cased is only there to mimic the letter "k" for example in the words "liquid" or "equator". While many other words would be more phonetic without the Q for example the word "Question" would sound more phonetic as "Kwestion". 3. Other languages have removed certain characters to make the reading more phonetic. The Japanese syllabary system "Hiragana" acts as the Japanese equivalent to an alphabet. Despite having two other scripts, all sound that could possibly be made in the Japanese language. Over time this script changed constantly before being standardized after WW2, but even then linguistic changes saw the removal and replacement of two characters of the hiragana script. Here is the original standard script: Two of the characters |32;(wi) and |33; (we) were replaced over time since these characters were rarely used in everyday prose, and were eventually replaced by the characters {56; (i but pronounced like ee) and {60; (e but pronounced like eh) For example: The Japanese Kanji 上 meaning "up" "above" or "upper" used to be read as we, but over time became read as ue. The Japanese language did not lose much when they removed the two characters. Therefore by removing the letter Q one does not only make the language more phonetic (hence easier to read) but also makes the language easier to memorise with less letters necessary to read. Sources: 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://www.wordfind.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://upload.wikimedia.org... 5. http://www.sljfaq.org...

Apologies, I have been suffering from the flu for a few days, and still. I will leave my argument where it stands and let the voting go on. Thank you for having this debate with me!

As con my position is the US should not change its current system of measurement. I would like to define a few things. The Metric System is a system of measurement started in France during the French Revolution[1]. It is a system designed around base 10 under an argument of "pure" reason. What's more reasonable than measuring things in the same numbering system as your count in? The current metric system is actually the SI, or International System, and was established in 1971[2]. What system the US currently uses isn't cut, and dry. According the the NIST the US is currently in transition to SI units[3]. NASA, and all scientific work, uses SI units. Our schools teach metric in every science, and math class so we are hardly falling behind anyone. However, clearly for everyday use the US the English System is used. It would be easiest to illustrate how irrational metric is by highlighting some of it's failures. When the French invented metric they also included Decimal Time[4]. As standards go, Decimal Time isn't used much. Some people have even tried to get it to catch on with Beat Time[5]. Why hasn't the world converted to a Metric version of time? You might be thinking that it's convenience, but it is not. It has to do with something people assume SI units does very well, but in everyday life does very poorly. That thing is basic fractions. If I were to ask you how many minutes were in a half an hour, quarter of an hour, a third of an hour, and a fifth of an hour what would you say? 30, 15, 20, and 5 minutes. Do you notice how the third of an hour came to a whole value of 20 instead of some infinite decimal? This is because English Units, and Time are based off of a base 12 system, and not a base 10 system. In a base 12 system fractions of 2, 3, and 4 are simple to do, and in the case of minutes base 60, which is base 12 times 5, fifths are easy. Those happen to be the most common form of fractions in everyday life. In a base 10 system you get 2, and 5 which is ok, but fifths aren't as useful if you don't also have thirds, and quarters. Even when it switches at the smaller scales to base 16, like with inchs, it's to make common fractions simpler. When you need smaller than an inch an eighth, quarter, or a half, work great in base 16. You can still end up with those infinite decimals, but they are less common with the common fractions. For everyday uses, like buying food, cooking, and basic measurements the English system is vastly superior, and the US should stay with it for everyday usage, and continue to use SI in Science. [1] . http://www.sciencemadesimple.com... [2] . http://www.iop.org... [3] . http://www.nist.gov... [4] . http://mentalfloss.com... [5] . http://www.swatch.com...

This is the last round so i urge you to vote for me because unlike my opponent, i presented a decent case. I will also like to state that my opponent's case is irrelevant to the debate. Thank you and i hope you vote for me.

Don't worry, you didn't violated any community standards; if anything it's even more impressive that you've formulated such concise logical arguments in your first DDO debate. --- I would like to clarify one thing before I get into my line-by-line refutations, That being, when liquidating cash one must liquidate the entire sum if it is an single bill or coin, otherwise must get the left over change change from the liquidation. So then even if my opponent only liquidated 100 dollars to his swiss account, he would still get 999,999,999,900 back in some way or another. You're not going to go to a store and hand the cashier a 100 dollar bill and say 'I just want to get 20 of this bill, leave the rest alone'; you're going to get a 20 dollar bill and 80 more dollars in whatever form the cashier decides to return the money. Accordingly if it is a single coin my opponent is liquidating, he would have to either liquidate the entire coin when depositing it, or else otherwise get the rest of the change from what he refused to liquidate. Either way we understand that the money would be taken from somewhere in a simple lump exchange. Until he could exchange the coin for smaller bills, it wouldn't be worth anything to him. (who could give him change? ) Furthermore, take out any paper money you have (USD) and look in the top right corner under the word 'American'. For those of other countries here's a point of reference[5] [5] . http://www.onedollarbill.org... If we know that the federal government would place a serial number on a single dollar bill, then it logically follows that they're going to do something similar, if not much more special, with the single largest piece of currency in human history. Keeping this in mind, I move onto my two premise I've discussed in the previous rounds, First: These coins were made for a special purpose and you would be caught as soon as you used them Once the most powerful country in the world has had 1 Trillion dollars stolen from them, word is going to spread fast. Even countries who are not allies with the U. S. would know of this and be wary of you for fear of retribution from the U. S. This is mind it logically follows that once you found someone willing and able to liquidate the coin (it would have to be a registered, certified bank) you would be caught immediately, before you would have a chance to put that money to use. This is because, The money's value isn't intrinsically related to the coin or bill, but indicative of wealth elsewhere, And where do you think that elsewhere would be? the federal reserve[6]. So it is still my intention to show that Con wouldn't be able to do anything with the cash. Even operating under the premise that the federal reserve honors Pro's liquidation (as per our agreement), as soon as he had the cash in some form or another he would be immediately incarcerated and the US would get their money back. [6] . http://www.frbservices.org... Let's consider these possibilities then; if he liquidates $1-50,000,000,000 he still has at least 50,000,000,000 on his person and the Federal Reserve will be notified of the exchange of funds. If he liquidates $50,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,000,000 then he'll $0-49,999,999,999 on his person and the federal reserve will still be notified of the transfer. Once notified, the federal government would forcibly freeze his account; violating whatever foreign laws they needed to do so, and he wouldn't be able to leverage enough of the cash in his favor to become the most powerful man before he was caught. The most he could carry on his person would be a couple of million dollars[7] [7] . http://www.frbservices.org... In Conclusion, I've shown that while pro could get the money, he couldn't use it to his advantage. All the money in the world is useless if you can't spend it.

shakespeare has been around for years and it gives a great deal of education to the people who want to write or do something with writing. Shakespeare is famouse, whow ould want to get rid of something so great and old? As for the pegiun I cant say anytihng on that because I dont see the real reason for why it was ban

Yes I unfortunately got wrapped up in something at the worst time so my response was delayed. My opponent seems to be contradicting herself about minimum wage. If the business is more inclined to pay less to the employee in order to keep the business going then by default the employee will have a lesser pay. You can't get around that, if they cannot afford what the minimum wage is now then how could they be able to pay the same amount or close to that when the law is abolished? It is not even that high of pay anyways why make it even lower? Employers would most certainly not be more inclined to pay fair wages, they know that you are in need of a job and will use that as leverage to make you settle for it. There are not a vast array of jobs out there that you can go out looking for, if there are not many jobs available and no safety net to keep you on your feet until you find a job you will go for any job regardless of pay. While it may be true that it hurts the economy in the sense that they have to pay employees higher wages that they cannot afford due to depression, the same thing could be said the other way around. How can you come out of depression when the products being made, cannot be bought due to low wages? My apologies for not providing a source to the unemployment rates for Michigan. http://www.csmonitor.com... As you can see the rate is 13.6% but from reading the comments of presumably Michigan residents it appears that it is a made up number and it is actually higher but the state just does not want to pay for unemployment. I would like to ask my opponent from refraining using third world countries that pay their employees less than a dollar an hour as a good example of why there should be no minimum wage. That is a poor example and just shows how little buinesses will pay even in a thriving economy. Look to comments once again and I apologize for doing it twice.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The US pricing system should cease using pennies.

"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny, one of the first American formulated coins, possesses both patriotic and personal value." Unfortunately, my opponent has misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it serves as a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. "The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering, with at least $15 billion wasted due to time spent with these pennies." If this statement made by my opponent is true, then using this logic, we should neglect the Statue of Liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the ultimate goal of economic stability. The Statue of Liberty, as we all know, is a symbol of both patriotic and personal value. This same statue brings in approximately $40,000 to $70,000 annually, however, we neglect the fact that the Statue of Liberty needs maintenance. $1,000 for the statue's torch/lighthouse, "$10,000 for maintenance (annually)" as a Huffington Post article recently revealed a plan for a $25.5 million renovation. The past renovation cost us approximately "$15 million dollars." With all the facts given, we can clearly see that despite the fact that the Statue of Liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate and maintain it because it serves as a patriotic symbol to both our population and our great nation. In the same way, the reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue the manufacturing and circulation of the penny.

"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar or a 5-gallon water jug." This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more pennies than any other coin due to face value.

"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism, but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that

Don't worry, you didn't violated any community standards; if anything it's even more impressive that you've formulated such concise logical arguments in your first DDO debate. --- I would like to clarify one thing before I get into my line-by-line refutations, That being, when liquidating cash one must liquidate the entire sum if it is an single bill or coin, otherwise must get the left over change change from the liquidation. So then even if my opponent only liquidated 100 dollars to his swiss account, he would still get 999,999,999,900 back in some way or another. You're not going to go to a store and hand the cashier a 100 dollar bill and say 'I just want to get 20 of this bill, leave the rest alone'; you're going to get a 20 dollar bill and 80 more dollars in whatever form the cashier decides to return the money. Accordingly if it is a single coin my opponent is liquidating, he would have to either liquidate the entire coin when depositing it, or else otherwise get the rest of the change from what he refused to liquidate. Either way we understand that the money would be taken from somewhere in a simple lump exchange. Until he could exchange the coin for smaller bills, it wouldn't be worth anything to him. (who could give him change? ) Furthermore, take out any paper money you have (USD) and look in the top right corner under the word 'American'. For those of other countries here's a point of reference[5] [5] . http://www.onedollarbill.org... If we know that the federal government would place a serial number on a single dollar bill, then it logically follows that they're going to do something similar, if not much more special, with the single largest piece of currency in human history. Keeping this in mind, I move onto my two premise I've discussed in the previous rounds, First: These coins were made for a special purpose and you would be caught as soon as you used them Once the most powerful country in the world has had 1 Trillion dollars stolen from them, word is going to spread fast. Even countries who are not allies with the U. S. would know of this and be wary of you for fear of retribution from the U. S. This is mind it logically follows that once you found someone willing and able to liquidate the coin (it would have to be a registered, certified bank) you would be caught immediately, before you would have a chance to put that money to use. This is because, The money's value isn't intrinsically related to the coin or bill, but indicative of wealth elsewhere, And where do you think that elsewhere would be? the federal reserve[6]. So it is still my intention to show that Con wouldn't be able to do anything with the cash. Even operating under the premise that the federal reserve honors Pro's liquidation (as per our agreement), as soon as he had the cash in some form or another he would be immediately incarcerated and the US would get their money back. [6] . http://www.frbservices.org... Let's consider these possibilities then; if he liquidates $1-50,000,000,000 he still has at least 50,000,000,000 on his person and the Federal Reserve will be notified of the exchange of funds. If he liquidates $50,000,000,000 - 1,000,000,000,000 then he'll $0-49,999,999,999 on his person and the federal reserve will still be notified of the transfer. Once notified, the federal government would forcibly freeze his account; violating whatever foreign laws they needed to do so, and he wouldn't be able to leverage enough of the cash in his favor to become the most powerful man before he was caught. The most he could carry on his person would be a couple of million dollars[7] [7] . http://www.frbservices.org... In Conclusion, I've shown that while pro could get the money, he couldn't use it to his advantage. All the money in the world is useless if you can't spend it.

Opening Remarks I would begin by noting that as I, as the affirmative, have the burden of persuasion. However, I do have an advantage in that I need only show that inflation can be good for an economy. I need not show that it is good for all economies nor that it is good for a given economy under all circumstances. In this first round I will give three reasons why inflation can be good for an economy. First, I will make some general remarks about the types of economies I will be discussing. There are two general forms of currency: convertible and fiat. A convertible currency is backed by a commodity (such as gold) or can be exchanged for a foreign currency (like the Bahama dollar). A fiat currency is backed by nothing[1]. It derives its value from the willingness of people to use it and the requirement that government taxes be paid in that currency. I will be talking about an economy with a fiat currency where the nation is the monopoly issuer of its own currency (like the US, UK or Japan but not Eurozone countries). In countries like these, the money is purely a product of the state, and it can (within limits) be manipulated by the state to achieve desired ends. To drive economic growth a country must expand its ability to produce. That is, the more the country can produce per citizen, the more each citizen can consume. This is what determines prosperity at the national level, not money. How much of a country's own money the country has is largely irrelevant (there are some secondary transaction effects and the like) to the economic prosperity it experiences. Most money exists simply as numbers in a computer system[2]. The total amount of money a country has is just the sum of all those numbers in all those computers. Clearly increasing or decreasing the total will have no direct effect on the country's wealth. Wealth is determined by real goods and services. Thus, I will be describing how inflation can increase a society's ability to produce real goods and services. Point 1. Average positive inflation prevents periods of deflation In a dynamic market, price levels will naturally fluctuate around an equilibrium. As unexpected events influence aggregate supply or demand, prices will naturally change. Absent strict price controls, there is not much a central government can do to prevent such fluctuations. For example, a sudden increase in population will cause an increase in demand. A natural disaster that interferes with shipping will decrease production and thus supply. Technological advancements will have the opposite effect. Each of these effects will have short term effect on prices. Those periods that lower prices can cause periods of deflation. If, however, there is a background (fairly stable) rate of inflation then these situations cause a reduction in inflation rate without actually allowing the economy to go into deflation. Because it’s a necessary antecedent to my argument, I will briefly touch on why deflation is bad for an economy. Since the economic health of a society is dependent on the amount of real goods and services that can be produced, to grow an economy means to invest in increased production. When an economy goes into deflation, holding cash becomes a profitable “investment” since it will be exchangeable for more real goods in the future. This effect reduces investment in otherwise profitable projects. Additionally, deflation means nominal wages have to fall in addition to prices. Since there is resistance to cutting wages (contracts and the like) the only way to have a decrease in aggregate wages is to have a rise in unemployment. Point 2. Inflation encourages investment over saving Money sitting in bank accounts or cash in a safe does not stimulate the economy. Construction of new factories and research into better production methods do. A small level of inflation discourages hording of money and encourages the holding of assets, either through outright purchase or by financing their creation. It is this creation of new assets, which in turn produces more goods, that grows the economy. Point 3. Inflation is caused by a growing economy Inflation (in a sovereign currency) is naturally caused by a growing economy. Central governments should not seek to prevent this. Generally speaking, a company needs to pay its costs (materials and labor) prior to receiving payment for finished goods. If a company expands (either by hiring more people or paying more for higher skills) it has increased the total demand in the economy (those new or higher paid workers will want to buy things). However, the new goods they are producing have not yet come on the market. Now imagine a similar phenomenon across the economy as a whole – companies are expanding and producing more. This causes a temporary jump in prices. Once the new goods come on the market, prices stop rising, having reached a new equilibrium. If, however more businesses expand, that will push prices up again. If businesses are expanding continuously, the price rise will be continuous and we have inflation. Yes, if businesses expand too rapidly, you can have a bubble. However, not all expansions are bubbles. If there were never an expansion, we would all still be tilling our own farms, and there would be no cars or iphones. References [1]Greg Mankiw Principles of Economics 659 . http://books.google.com... [2]. http://www.pbs.org... [3] . http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... (cited for the internal quotes, not the author’s opinion)

MY TURN! C1: The Resolution is a Minor Concession by my Opponent Roy is advocating to that it ought to not increase. This must mean that my opponent concedes that there are benefits of the MW in the first place. If my opponent thought that the MW was more harmful than beneficial, he would have advocated for it's complete abolishment. Otherwise, there is at least some reason to keep minimum wage (MW). C2: The Role of the Government is Not a Factor Here I would like to point out that this debate revolves around the evaluation of a policy. The question is not what the government's role ought to be. The topic of this debate must assume that the government is already involved, and the question of this debate is whether it has been economically beneficial or not. Therefore, my opponents entire 4th point concerning welfare is completely irrelevant. Besides, MW and welfare are different. To justify keeping MW the same, he must in fact show the effects of this on the whole economy. When my opponent reverts to microeconomics to try and justify his position, this is null-and-void. Turn: Without raising MW, the costs to the state is substantial: we lose tax revenue, more people go on welfare programs, some look to the “shadow economy” and begin to commit crimes, etc... So by taking the position my opponent has maintained, he is actually making those dependant on the state worse off by opposing MW, instead of saving money by increasing wages. Besides, my opponent completely forgets that if MW increases, people will be encouraged to find a job through legal means. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] C3: MW Hasn't Been Abolished Due to it's Effectiveness Thought experiment: MW enters the US in about the 1930's under FDR's New Deal. Since then, the MW legislation has been increased in the US alone 22 times. Unless it was beneficial to the people, politicians, and businesses, then why has it not been abolished? In fact, why has it been furthered even surpassing federal levels in some states? Heck, why is it that in some parts of South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a MW is simply customary? The answer is simple: MW legislation simply works. Well over 90% of the world has some form of a MW legislation, so there’s lots of data for us to analyze. [http://tinyurl.com...] C4: MW Improves the Gini Coefficient Pretty self-explanatory: when MW hikes happen, every single index from the Gini Coefficient to Atkinson indexes, or even standard deviation of logarithms, show great improvement for the US. Meaning when MW hikes happen, income mobility is dramatically improved, and ones ability to improve their financial situation from their parents is increased. (“the American Dream” folks?!)[http://tinyurl.com...] C5: Monopsonistic Competition Unfairly Favour Businesses Imperfect competition has resulted in a buyer being able to unfairly dictate it's terms to the seller (worker) because of the volume of sellers. When competition between sellers ensues, the marginal product of labour (MLP) drops. The seller is producing the same amount of goods, but at a reduced price. As a result when MW increases, employment and wages go up as well. When we ask how much MW should increase, we look to MLP for equilibrium. MW is a legislation that regulates a market failure, not some silly “free-lunch” handout my opponent dresses it up as. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re1: Labour Costs Are About 25-35% of Fast Food Costs If we were to have a controlled experiment between someone who does pay MW (Walmart) vs paying more (Costco) we find that Costco actually saves money due to less turnover rates in the long run. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re2: Increase Costs Actually Can Come From Revenue, in Fact My Opponent Himself Stated This in His First Paragraph (Price Increases) Senator Elizabeth Warren notes on raising MW, McDonalds would be able to raise their prices about 8 more cents per burger to off-set the increase in labour costs (assuming MW is up to $14.75/hour). Meaning that increase costs can be compensated with additional revenue, my opponent noted this himself. It doesn't make sense to claim that prices will increase, but somehow revenue is lost when prices compensate for those factors. Furthermore, this is NOT counting the fact that most people who make a yearly income of $5,000 or less (students) spend about 6.2% of their income at fast-food chains. This is also not including the fact that increasing MW, as economist Robert Reich notes, only effects industries such as fast food, hospitality chains, and retail. Far more people will actually have more money to spend, furthering productivity, and the amount of money McDonalds gets in return as a result is higher than what my opponent claims. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re3: My Opponent Assumes the Neoclassical Model of Supply and Demand When Claiming Half The Jobs Would Be Lost My opponent is assuming a basic supply and demand model in microeconomics. As OMGJustinBeiber points out: “To get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision – ["Raising minimum wage would costs half the jobs, jobs will be lost to technology"] -- to make his case. Short of believing this standard we must vote con.” For instance, my opponent notes a completely automated McDonalds in Tokyo, but as much as it makes complete rational sense for every single McDonalds to go this way (saves on labour costs substantially to the investor) they simply have not done it yet even after a MW hike in 2007! Rationally, this is the most illogical thinking I have ever seen if my opponents claim is correct! Meaning that some things demanded, or even supplied have absolutely no rational basis for them, and this assumption of actors always working for their own rational self-interests is nonsense. In fact, in his claim that jobs would be lost, he cites he following study: .Burkhauser, Couch et Wittenburg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000. Upon examining the study, it only used 3 points of data constituting a hasty conclusion. Turn: My opponent claims that if MW increases, McDonalds would have incentive to replace workers with technology, costing jobs. However, he actually made a de facto case for minimum wage, as technology is a benefit to the economy not a detriment! Furthermore, this article was made in 2003 as his citation notes. Lets not forget MW at the federal level was increased in 2007, yet this fear of a complete automated McDonalds has yet to appear in the US (to the best of my knowledge). This is an irrational position for my opponent to claim; if my opponent's claim was correct, McDonalds would have already automated everything in every store. [http://tinyurl.com...] studies show that jobs are increased or are unaffected when MW is increased. The studies done by Card and Kruger show this when comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This was after New Jersey hiked their MW in 1992 by 18%. This was repeated using the data from a federal MW hike, and California hike and the findings stayed the same. When we drop the supply and demand model, and actually precisely look at the employment impacts of a MW hike, they either remain unchanging or increase. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re4: Role of the Government (See C2) Conclusion: My opponent displays kettle logic and agreed with me on some points: MW increases technological innovation, businesses would not lose money due to price increases. The monsopolistic society we live in would heavily benefit from a MW increase when we drop the “s/d” generalities, and observe precise impacts via Card and Kruger studies.I did not ask for special treatment! Thank You

The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution should not be repealed because it allows the Federal government to tax income in a much more meaningful way. Also, repealing the 16th Amendment would also be a lot of hassle, and with no good reason to repeal it, this makes it very much not worth it. So there are my opening reasons. Since my opponent made no opening arguments, these will suffice for now. Usefulness we derive from the 16th amendment is one reason not to repeal it, the hassle inherent in repealing it is another. I now await my opponent's argument.

Resolution:A pallet of Nickels is a solid income plan I would like for my opponent to go first.

Actually, if it weren't for slavery, the civil war wouldn't have happened. 1." Inflation will not occur due to the 9 month pregnancy period that will make generating babies a slow one and of course the corpse will rot away, this means for any large scale storage of currency, people will have to use banks with industrial freezers. Such freezers would be too expensive for the ordinary person to own on a large scale, meaning various black markets, such as drug rings will not be able to store large sums of this currency and will be forced to use banks, allowing for easy identification by local authorities. This is called "The no more money under mattress effect" and will also help circulate wealth." Not true. If the black markets are making enough money from drugged people, they will always have enough money to afford those freezers. Not to mention the freezers are adding unnecessary taxes to the economy, which would actually make a MUCH larger government. 2. "It will also encourage men and women to come together and procreate, strengthening social bonds thus leading to more sex overall. While it's true that a large portion of the newborn population will be culled for currency, the maternal instincts of mothers and the increased rate at which they are now giving birth, will ensure the mothers desire to keep some of their babies and in turn, will increase the population. This will also allow for defects to be removed from the gene pool." It would also lead to more raping and abuse, when a man wants money. If the babies are money, they won't want to keep them and rather, get rich. 3. "I urge my opponent to stop being so closed minded and consider the possibilities of accepting change." I'm not being close minded, I'm just pointing out that this is the most unethical way of doing things.

My point is that the death penalty should not just be about money. Additionally, the amount of prisoners sentenced to Life Without Parole is not very high. Only one in ten out of the people sentenced to life in prison can not get parole. People on death row also are treated very poorly, some are in their cell for 23 hours of the day, with little interaction with other people. Maybe instead of putting these killers with mental defects, as you put it, on death row, we should send them to a mental institution. The intent of the DP may not be to teach ethics or prove a point, but that is what it is doing, and it is not working. So many people believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but crime rates have not gone down because of it. And if the only reason we are killing these people is because they are beyond rehabilitation, then what is the harm in a Life Sentence Without Parole.

The United States has several ways on how criminals should be punished. The most important punishments are serving time in prison and the death penalty. The death penalty is the worst punishment that a judge could sentence a defendant. The death penalty should be removed from the punishments the United States provides for its defendants, because in many cases it is not a 100% chance that the defendant did in fact commit the crime. In cases where the defendant actually did commit the crime, they should still be convicted a life sentence in prison, rather than the death penalty. If the death penalty is sentenced to a defendant, who according to evidence presented in court did in fact commit the crime, instead of this being the worst thing that could ever happen, it could be an easy way out; the defendant to not serve a life sentence. When it comes to money, the United States may be spending more per having prisoners serve life sentences, then sentencing the life sentence. However, the death penalty is still not a way of justice. The death penalty is a waste of taxpayers' money, and has no public safety benefit. Instead, the death penalty has a main motive of revenge, instead of justice. The death penalty can be considered as violating the U.S. Constitution, because it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and the guarantees of the due process of law and of equal protection under the law are violated. The States should not give themselves the right to kill human beings, whatever the crime may have been, it is much more revenge than it is justice. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the majority of the law enforcement professionals, surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crimes. It is obvious that even law enforcement professionals do not agree with the death penalty. The death penalty does not stop crimes that continue in the streets every day, it only kills one human being who may have committed the crime they are being accused of. If money is the issue for having too many prisoners, there is such a thing as rehabilitation centers, which is what prisons are sentenced certain amount of time to serve in the first place. It is much better to have someone spend their life in prison, rather than giving them the easy way out through the death penalty. The doubt of someone actually committing the crime they are being accused of, and going forward with the death penalty is a doubt that will not go away. The fact that an innocent human being was sentenced to the death penalty is a life that is lost and cannot be gained back. The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death, is that it treats members of the human race as nonhuman, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. Lives should not be toyed with when facing a severe punishment as the death penalty. Aside from the death penalty being the worst punishment, the need for a physician to be present to conduct the procedure is in violation of the oath they take upon, which is to protect lives; this erodes public confidence in the medical profession. The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine, which is to do no harm. Instead of the death penalty being a way of stopping crimes, the fact that one person is being named for committing a crime is not accurate, it violates the Constitution, and more importantly those physicians who are certified to save lives , are going against their oath and helping with the prosecution.

You make several good points. However, *counter-argument.