Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The circulation of pennies should be discontinued.

Indeed, I had intended to outline my advantages and arguments in my subsequent speech, following the presentation of my proposal. Let's examine some figures concerning pennies: 1. Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, equating to 2 billion dollars 2. Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3. Pennies minted in 2013: 7 billion, amounting to 70 million dollars

With some calculations, it becomes clear that if we minted 7 billion pennies in 2013, and each penny costs 1.99 cents to produce, then we spent a total of 13,939,000,000 (13 billion 930 million cents) to create these pennies in 2013. That's a grand total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to manufacture our pennies. As a result, we are incurring a loss of 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars) based on these statistics and the total losses associated with these pennies. There is no justification for not implementing this plan, considering these figures. Moreover, we can offset some of these losses by recycling these pennies and utilizing the metal for other ventures.

An intriguing aspect to ponder is that this has been done previously, in 1857, when the half penny was abolished. There were no significant repercussions, and the value of the dollar was considerably higher back then. Given that no severe side effects emerged when the value of the dollar was higher, it is evident that the current economy will experience minimal impact.

Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...

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

There are 2 points that strongly support my debate: 1. First and foremost, the Death penalty is an extraneous situation in which long and complex judical court processes proceed. There are other means to kill a person which would be much simpler than the death penalty. 2. The death penalty costs around $137 million every year with around $90,000 for each prisoner destined for death. This is exorbitant compared to other methods such as life-term prisoner condition (costs $11.5 million) or even putting a bullet through one's head (to put in straight terms). Therefore, it is a waste of important resources. Sources: . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc...

I thank my opponent for the opportunity he has provided me in this debate to show why the death penalty should not remain legal. As to his points: "The average cost per inmate (not on death row) in California costs the state 49,000 multiply that by 680 inmates charged with the crime of murder and you will get 33,320,000 the average cost of medicine per inmate is $6,935 multiply that by 680 you get 4,715,800 add that number with 33,320,000 you get 38,035,800(per year). As you can the price of holding a regular inmate exceeds that number." What about food? Clothes? Costs of keeping them under guard? Septic system costs? Administrative costs? Etc. Keep in mind that people on death row are kept in prison nearly as long as those in for life. On top of the ordinary costs, they also have to have greater supervision, plus costs for execution methods, plus added costs of appeals and heightened innocence investigations. "The fact of the matter is the reason that our current system is as costly as it is, is due to the lack of executions in California not because of them. In 30 years California has only executed 13 out of the hundreds of people on death row." Yes. They have done this because of errors in the system and the need to provide due process. In other words, because they have to in order to keep the death penalty just. "… putting a couple of bullets into the murderers the moment they are convicted of the crime [is] my idea of death penalty reform …" Then you have (hypothetically) just killed this man: http://forejustice.org... More to the point, the immediate application of a penalty without judicial review is a denial of due process, essential to justice, and smacks of radical anti-democratic authoritarianism. This is something the United States should never tolerate if it wishes to keep itself true to its ideals. "… every single person accused of murder gets a fair trial. That is exactly what due process is." This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. The appeals and review process is a part of due process. It isn't just the right to confront your accusers before they take you out back and shoot you. Also, no, not every person gets a fair trial. See the above example for the unfair results that occur following prosecutorial misconduct. Remember that people run these trials, not God. Justice relies upon the hope that enough people in the mix will prevent anyone from playing God. What you are arguing is neither right, nor just, nor moral. "People who are convicted of murder obviously do not get to enjoy their right to life since they have taken somebody Else's right to life therefore they should be put to death immediately." What of people who are falsely convicted of murder? If you take that person's life, wouldn't that make you a murderer who needs to be immediately shot? Also, rights exist for the benefit of the right bearers … the dead are no longer around to demand justice, so at best we can argue that the social prescription of death for murder is intended to provide effect for the rights of those mourning the aggrieved. Their rights would just as well be served knowing that, for as long as the offender can be kept alive, the offender will suffer a loss as they have. "Yes, every study has a margin of error but how can you look at that graph I cited and not admit that the death penalty is working in some way[?]" Because I can provide any number of other events that occurred in one of the peaks, like 1990; I turned nine, for example. Oops, my bad. This isn't an issue of a margin of error. This is an issue of knowing how to read statistics. "On the national scale the graph I cited above shows that with more executions leads to less murders." No, it showed that a higher number of executions correlate with a lower number of murders. That doesn't mean having more executions results in fewer murders. Perhaps having fewer murders resulted in more executions, because more resources ordinarily devoted to handling new cases can be devoted to finishing the job on the old ones. "I tried reading your source but read nothing about the correlation between drugs and murder." The point was that the spike in murders occurred following the national crackdown on marijuana (check the dates). Using your logic that means the illegality of marijuana resulted in more people acting aggressively and committing murder. "Your source does not say we are killing them it simply states the number of people on death row." I will concede that. We just have more people *lined up* to be killed. That still means that the death penalty isn't deterring. "There is two reasons for that. 1.population increase in the U.S. and 2. there has been a decline in executions in many states such as the example I made with California." 1.If population increase was to blame, but the death penalty worked as a deterrent, we would not see population increases correlating with death row population statistics. 2.If declines in executions deter, then why is it that those states with no executions (less than less – none) have fewer murders than even California? Also – this: http://www.prisonactivist.org... "But, there is immediate threat how about those prison guards who are killed while watching inmates? The threat will always be there until they are rightfully put to death." Only until the next batch rolls in as murder has not been deterred. You're arguing incapacitation now, which is invalid for any number of reasons by itself, not the least of which is that there is no way to know who will reoffend. "Capital punishment is the punishment murderers receive." No, I meant … *groan* … you are comparing apples and oranges when you speak about people not having the ability to defend themselves and not being able to punish. One action is taken to prevent unjustified harm, the other to discourage further unjustified harm. You can not use the rationale for one in place of the other. They meet two entirely different objectives. "Whether that is true or not I am sure you will find that the most heinous crimes you can think of are on the rise. I am sure you can equate that to a moral decline." They are not. There is no ‘moral decline.' If anything, we are on a moral upswing and would be doing very well if not for some stupid economic decisions we've made over the past two decades. "North Carolina banned executions of the mentally ill. Giving people who aren't mentally ill a defense for claiming a illness they do not have." Also, it gives the mentally ill who are really mentally ill the clemency that they deserve. Which is more important: the few unworthy lives spared or the few innocent lives saved? If you're for victims' rights, you have to argue the latter. Yet to support the death penalty, you have to argue the former. That's outright hypocrisy. In conclusion, my opponent failed to show why the current death penalty system should remain. He then argued that there should be a new death penalty system, one that remains as unjustified but is more cost effective because it is unjust. I have argued for the system that is cost effective, just, and justified: life imprisonment. I now strongly urge a vote for Con, so that we citizens of the United States can move beyond this very silly and somewhat tragic moment in our history and move towards a new era of heightened civility and efficiency.

I find this to be a rather useless debate considering that there is no argument to be made.

Again, notice how Rational dissed my very valid point. He is more focused on a comment that really does not apply. Anyway, I am not convinced and this is our concsion round.

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...

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...

Wow that was an incredibly weak argument. Just because it does not endorse a specific religion like Christianity doesn't make it non-religious. The concept of god is a religious concept and according to the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The reason God should not be mention in our money is because some of us believe in more than one god, and some of us don't even believe in a god like myself. The Government is supposed to represent all of its citizens irrespective of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. By respecting a religious stance the government misrepresents and fails to acknowledge those with different beliefs by upholding one religious view over others. This is a form of religious oppression because those of us with different beliefs are forced to use money that displays views we don't believe in This is why it's illegal to have religious symbols on public property, and why public school can't endorse any religion or religious view. The US government obeys the establishment clause in most cases just not when it comes to our currency.

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.

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


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The circulation of pennies in the US should be discontinued.

Today, pennies have become an unnecessary burden on our economy and should be abolished. According to a Harris Poll, which surveyed 2,136 adults online across the nation, 59% of respondents opposed the elimination of the penny. One of the main reasons cited for keeping the penny was its historical significance as a tribute to President Abraham Lincoln. In December 2005, President Bush signed legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to introduce new reverse side designs to commemorate the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, stated, "The penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History." Another reason given was the penny's perceived importance to our pricing system, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, executive director of Americans for Common Cents.

However, the benefits of keeping pennies are far outweighed by the negative consequences. The argument that the penny is a crucial memorial to President Lincoln is flawed. Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, who preserved the Union and abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, is already well-represented on the five dollar bill. Additionally, he has a dedicated memorial in Washington D.C., a 99-foot marble statue that cost $3 million. Why should we continue to produce pennies that have little impact on Lincoln's legacy when they are causing economic inefficiencies? According to MIT graduate Jeff Gore, the presence of pennies wastes time and resources, costing each person $60 per year and the nation over $15 billion annually. Moreover, the cost of producing a penny is approximately 1.6 cents.

Mark Weller's claim that the penny is essential to our pricing system lacks credibility and is likely biased due to his affiliation with an organization that supports the coin. Economic history shows that the value of the penny has diminished significantly over time. As William Saffire humorously noted, "the Brits and the French, even the French! - who got rid of their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle." The penny has become an obstacle to our economy, serving as little more than a trivial memorial to a great president.

On the other hand, Edmond Knowles claims to have saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the past 38 years, accumulating 1,3

the debate is about is about countries that decide against their currencies because of uncontrollable inflation and a crumbling economy. this normally happens in third world countries and they tend to use the american dollar as their currency until they get back on their feet. so i'm saying this is not destroying their economies as some economists are saying.

" 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!

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.

The death penalty should be Illegal. The death penalty is wrong and immoral. According to "Against the Death Penalty" there are many different factors that play tribute to why the death penalty should be illegal. Firstly, a life sentence would save time and money as opposed to the death penalty. Secondly, many people believe the death penalty is used as a deterrent, as in we have to make crime rates go down. The truth is, crime rates have not gone down. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other countries. Nothing bad can come from sending someone to life in prison. It keeps crime off the streets and it is a lot more moral than the death penalty. We live in a country where killing is wrong, yet we kill people on death row. It is almost as if we are hypocrites. We do not live in a country where we live by an eye for an eye. We live in a country where we have the right to life, and that should not be taken away from us, no matter what the circumstance.

I find this to be a rather useless debate considering that there is no argument to be made.

You are a worthy foe. I stated my points, no sense saying them again. Vote however you choose. Good day everyone.

Sorry man I couldn't read a lot of your response due to bad spelling, but I think what you were trying to say is that the stock market hasn't crashed? Well, the stock market is dropping along with the minimum wage is staying. If you were smart enough to glance at the statistics before making such a argumentative debate you would have seen that Congress or no one likes the minimum wage. Only small town people like you want it. There is no possible way society could survive by having a constant minimum wage.

I am challenging ZexLiberty to this debate to defend a comment he made in the forums in a thread created by imabench, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org... He stated the following: "Eliminate laws regarding the minimum wage. There should be no legally enforced minimum wage. The government should not regulate how much an employer can pay a voluntary employee. Organized Labor and individuals can bargain for higher wages and better working conditions if they wish to do so."I'd like for him to defend this assertion in a formal debate, and genuinely hope that he will accept. It will certainly be a nice way to integrate himself into the community! Definition and ParticularsResolved: The minimum mage should be abolishedPRO will argue that the minimum wage should be abolished, whereas CON will argue that it should not be. The resolution is normative in nature, and thus the burden of proof will be evenly split. Minimum Wage: "an amount of money that is the least amount of money per hour that workers must be paid according to the law" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The resolution does not specify who sets the minimum wage--be it a federal or state government--so this will simply apply to any minimum wage law, whereby CON defends their existence and PRO argues for their abolition. Abolish: "to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is equally shared. Thank you to ZexLiberty in advance if he opts to accept, and I welcome him to the website. Hopefully this will be a great first debate for him. It's certainly a topic that I find quite interesting.

"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.

Thank You CON! 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Not everyone believes in god in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. I don't think my opponent will argue that no atheists exists in America, but I'll provide a source either way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5% of Americans are atheists. As for the second class citizen, the definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com... "A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration." I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State."Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"-Jefferson.http://www.loc.gov.........The actual rule:"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion" http://dictionary.reference.com... By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The U.S. Penny Should Be Retired

You raise a valid argument, but consider this: should we really eliminate the penny? Here are a few reasons why we should keep it around. First, removing a symbol of a national hero would be disrespectful. It's akin to getting rid of the flag, a symbol of our country's pride. Even though the penny may be the least valuable form of currency, it is still currency. Eliminating it could cause issues if you need exact change. But that's not the main point. Disrespecting a President, especially a great one like Lincoln, is simply unacceptable, and he is a true American hero. However, in the digital age, where credit cards, debit cards, and cryptocurrencies are becoming more prevalent, will the penny still have a place? In 50 years, when everything is digital, I still want to be able to reach into my pocket and find a shiny Lincoln penny, a reminder of how far we've come.

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.

Again, notice how Rational dissed my very valid point. He is more focused on a comment that really does not apply. Anyway, I am not convinced and this is our concsion round.

You certainly shouldn't pay someone who is not good enough for the minimum wage. If the person isn't good enough for the minimum, then fire then or don't hire them. If you're still willing to keep them, then don't given them a raise, but you kept them so it's their own choice to keep them. As for menial jobs like picking dandelions, I have already agreed to make exceptions.... but most jobs that pay minimum now are worth it to the managers to continue the business and still pay the minimum wage. Someone will always not be able to hire for beans.... but that doesn't mean we don't keep them, it just means they shouldn't be in business if it's a job that could be worth it to anyone else who could afford it. (if it's not that then it might be an exception) "You certainly should pay someone more than minimum wage if he/she does a better job. However, in reality,teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.You cannot make a living and support a family on a minimum wage job." These are all actually arguments for a minimum. Those just starting out would have peanuts for wages and not be able to pull ahead very well. We say pull yourself up from your boot straps, but what if you have no boot straps to pull yourself up with? If they want to support a family, then can get a better job somehow.. we can't take care of everything. but anyway, your point about them not being able to afford a family makes my argument more than yours in taht sense, so i'm not sure what your point even is with that statement. "Also,there has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing"" We simply prohibit the outsourcing then, as much as possible. We live in a wealthy country, and it's not right for employers to maximize their profits while using our resources by exploiting cheap labor in other countries. I could become very welathy if i hired a poor mexican to do my bidding, doesn't mean it's right, and oesn't mean it's fair to my fellow countrymen, who's resources and wealth i'm using. If we allow outsourcing, then we'd all be paid beans, because labor is for practical purposes infinite. (the loical end of capitalism completely unfettered would be those rich will be so rich as to own everything as the poor would keep falling behind. thyis is proven because the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase in this country) "Obviously, minimum wage isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angelas. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns." So... it is helping the people in the small towns and such, and at least keeping things from being worse in the new york areas... I don't see your point?

"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?

There are 2 points that strongly support my debate: 1. First and foremost, the Death penalty is an extraneous situation in which long and complex judical court processes proceed. There are other means to kill a person which would be much simpler than the death penalty. 2. The death penalty costs around $137 million every year with around $90,000 for each prisoner destined for death. This is exorbitant compared to other methods such as life-term prisoner condition (costs $11.5 million) or even putting a bullet through one's head (to put in straight terms). Therefore, it is a waste of important resources. Sources: . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc...

There are many reasons why we should abolish the death penalty. It is expensive, cruel, flawed, and not doing anyone any favors. Skeptical? Maybe the following facts will change your mind! 1. It's expensive. As of April 30th, 2013, the US National Debt is over 16 trillion dollars. We can't afford to add to this tremendous amount! In California ALONE, over $4 BILLION dollars were spent on capital punishment ITSELF since 1978. And $184 million has been additionally spent EVERY YEAR in California on the capital trials, security on death row, and legal representation. In Maryland, taxpayers have spent AT LEAST $186 million on the death penalty since 1978. 2. It's inhumane. Many execution methods are cruel. Take the gas chamber, for example. "At first there is evidence of extreme horror, pain, and strangling. Their eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool." says Clifton Duffy, former Penitentiary warden of San Quenton, California. Hanging is also an unacceptable means of capital punishment. According to "Executions- Preparing Staff for the Hard Time Ahead" and J. Weisburg, author of "This is Your Death," execution by hanging is rarely instantaneous, and that " If the inmate has strong neck muscles, is very light, if the 'drop' is too short, or the noose has been wrongly positioned, the fracture-dislocation is not rapid and death results from slow asphyxiation. If this occurs the face becomes engorged, the tongue protrudes, the eyes pop, the body defecates, and violent movements of the limbs occur." The firing squad is no better. The shooter is supposed to aim for the inmate's heart for a more human means of killing, but if they miss, the inmate slowly bleeds to death. Lethal Injection may sound like a good option, then, if a death without pain is best, but it's risky. The chemical that kills the inmate is supposed to be injected into a working vein so the death is painless, but sometimes, the needle is mistakenly injected into their muscle. This causes an extremely painful death. These methods of executions clearly show that execution is torturous and inhumane. 3. Many executed people are actually innocent. According to Columbia University professor James Liebman, 5% of inmates executed are later found to be innocent. 5%! This is similar to 1 student in every classroom at an elementary school being killed. 1 in 20 people are killed, sometimes torturously, for only seeming guilty. This is NOT in any means acceptable. 4. It's not justice. Many families of murder victims are against the death penalty. One is Aba Gayle, whose teenage daughter Catherine Blout was murdered by Douglas Mickey. Says Gayle, "I did not want state-sanctioned murder to tarnish the life of my beautiful child." Another is Vicki Schieber, whose daughter was murdered in Pennsylvania in 1998, who disagrees with the death penalty, saying "The system is just too painful." Many families of murder victims agree that the money annually wasted on the death penalty could be used to help counsel and support survivors. The death penalty is wrong on many counts, such as its over the top pricing, its cruelty, its murdering of innocent people, and its inability to serve justice. If two wrongs don't make a right, why do we murder murderers? Why do we kill to show that killing is wrong?

In this round I am going to rebutt Geographia's opening argument. The Mandate of the Federal Reserve: According to Investipedia, the duties of the Federal Reserve are: "1)To promote sustainable growth, 2) To maintain high levels of employment, 3) To stabilitze prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar 4) moderate long-term interest rates. The leaders of the Fed are not elected "The leaders of the Fed are not elected. I'm not saying they are cohorts in making a conspiracy to control the world, but that they are not held accountable. [1]" The leaders of the Fed, are however, selected by the Senate and the President (,http://en.wikipedia.org...) who are elected by United States citizens to appoint government offices such as the Federal Reserve. This selectment system is similiar to the justices Supreme Court, who are selected by the President and the Senate. If a Federal Reserve member is not doing their job, then they go through an impeachment process. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Since the leaders of the Fed can be impeached, they are held accountable, just like any other government agency, therefore abolishing the Federal Reserve on this ground is unjustified. There has been inflation This is generally known and it shouldn't be contested much. First off, inlfation is invetiable, according to this website: http://www.economist.com... Second off, inflation is not a bad thing, as it tends to lead to wage increase and a sign of a growing economy. (http://www.investopedia.com...) What is a bad thing, however, is unexpected hyperiflation, and the Federal Reserve has done a good job in targetting inflation and keeping it in check (ww.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/) thus the Federal Reserve has done its obligation to check inflation. There has been Several severe economic crisis. Also shouldn't be contested much. The Fed doesn't seem to be much able to do much in times of recession or depression. During the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve had to reform in order to more effectively counter the Great Depression. And the situation of the Great Depression improved over time (http://www.u-s-history.com...) The Federal Reserve did a lot better job countering the Great Recession, however, and since Novemember 2010 the unemployment rate went down from 9.8 % to 5.5%. Thus, the Fed did do a sufficient amount to lower unemployment during the Great Recession. (https://research.stlouisfed.org...) In conclusion, the Federal Reserve fufills its mandate to "1)To promote sustainable growth, 2) To maintain high levels of employment, 3) To stabilitze prices to help preserve the purchasing power of the dollar 4) moderate long-term interest rates. I have also rebutted all of my opponents points, demonstrating that Fed leaders can be kept in check via impeachment, that inflation is not neccessarily a bad thing by indicating a growing economy, and that the Federal Reserve has been effective in reducing unemployment during the Great Recession. (I have also demonstrated in the last Round how the United States is the largest economy in the world.) Thus, the Federal Reserve should not be abolished, for it has fufilled its obligations.

I have 2 main contentions against the proposition that the Federal Reserve should be abolished1: The Federal Reserve bank is necessary to maintaining price stability. I will explain further if challenged, but prices convey vital information to producers, consumers, workers, and investors in an economy. Sudden and/or unexpected changes in the overall level of prices can have adverse effects on national output by changing the terms of trade. A central, independent monetary authority, like the Federal Reserve, can help to maintain price stability that cannot happen either under a Gold Standard or under a free-banking system. 2: The Federal Reserve Bank can provide economically useful counter-cyclical policies that could not happen under a gold standard or free banking system. Sudden reductions in the quantity or velocity of money due to various events in an economy can, without justification, cause output to fall, unemployment to rise, and consequently overall happiness to decrease. By expanding the monetary base through the printing press, the Federal reserve can offset the contractionary effects of such events.

Andrew Jackson hated central banks. He deliberately acted to destroy the Bank of the United States, the central bank at the time. He believed in the value of specie-- gold or silver money, as opposed to the fiat money represented by the twenty dollar Federal Reserve Note. Fiat money represents the force of a tyrant, not an exchange of values between honest men. All putting Andrew Jackson's face on a fiat note distributed by the Federal Reserve Bank accomplishes is cheapening the value of his legacy, and showing off the government's peculiar mix of ignorance or lack of integrity, however that mix may be composed. Eliminate the 20 dollar bill (and therefore Jackson's face from it), move to a new, commodity-backed currency, then have Jackson's face on that if you want, anything else is dishonest. If you seek to keep fiat money, find someone else to idolize on it, perhaps a picture of FDR confiscating the gold of every citizen who kept it.

"Since, the opposition in this debate uses valuable space to only inquire on the Fed's constitutionality, this will be addressed first. The Supreme Court in 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland set legal precedent that the US Congress could establish a central bank https://www.law.cornell.edu...... ." Did you ever read the constitution? The constitution grants congress the power to issue currency, specifically to coin money in gold and or silver coin but that is another debate, if you were to read the constitution, you will notice that among the powers granted to the supreme court, amending the constitution is not one of them. So, the Supreme Court Ruling is insignificant, the Supreme Court is not here to make the law, it is here to enforce it and to oversee the court system, I will give you a link to the constitution so you can read it for yourself. http://www.archives.gov... "One assumption made in America is that every bill passed by congress and signed by the President is Constitutional. Every person in the process is sworn to protect the Constitution, it is their first loyalty. None are sworn to protect voters, special interest, or a political idea, only a sacred document. People that take an oath like that can only be trusted. The Constitution gives congress three clauses that apply to the Fed's constitutionality." If you think that just because someone said that they would protect the constitution that it means that everything they do is constitutional just because they said so, you better go read up on the milligrams test. http://www.simplypsychology.org... "Necessary and Proper Clause "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This clause, in its modern interpretation, basically, anything congress does is constitutional. As a former Speaker explains when questioned about an obviously unconstitutional bill was being debated in congress, http://youtu.be...... ." Your interpretation is insignificant, the constitution says what it means, this means that it can create departments to serve purposes, but these departments are still limited by the constitution, and no, if everything congress did was constitutional according to the constitution, then the constitution would just be one sentence; "The government is always right!" General Welfare Clause "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." It is in the general welfare of the residence of the United States to be protected from economic swings, hold stable legal tender, and have a safe banking system. The Fed has provided all of these for a hundred years. Congress with the Fed has increased the general welfare of America." This is actually very debatable, for one this is dependent upon your point that congress has the power to do anything regardless of the constitution if it is for the general welfare, I would like to state that Adolf Hitler said that the holocaust was for the general welfare. I would also like to state that saying that the Federal Reserve is beneficial does not make it so, truthfully, when you are talking about this, you cannot base it off of what the Federal Reserve says, I will base this off of fact though, for example, before the Federal Reserve, inflation was a steady 1%, then it spiked into double digit inflation, followed by a 2% deflation, now to all those people who are new to economic theory, you are probably thinking, "deflation, ell that can"t be worse than inflation", well the answer is no, it is much worse! In addition, this allows for congress to act for the general welfare, which is regardless still limited by the constitution, not for someone else, who is not congress, to pretend as if it is providing for the general welfare, and to violate the constitution, which is what you are proposing. Commerce Clause "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," This commerce regulation responsibility is centralized by a common legal tender. Without common legal tender merchants would not be able to accurately compare the value of products. Multiple types of legal tender is very confusing to most people, their phones can only have so many apps. People cannot be encumbered with currency conversion." This means that congress has the power to regulate commerce, not that they have the power to give that power to a private corporation. "The Fed does not print or coin money. One constitutional objection to the Fed is that money must be of gold or silver, from this clause in the Constitution "No State shall...coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This clause limits States not the Federal government or private institutions. If this clause did limit the Federal government or private institutions, it still would not constrain the Fed, since it does not print or coin money, currency, or legal tender. The US Treasury has those responsibilities." So hold it, why then is it that if I open my wallet and get a 1$ bill it says "Federal Reserve Note", the US Treasury prints money for the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve simply is borrowing the Treasuries printer because, well, they have the most HD printers in the world, that"s it, the Federal Reserve orders the printing, they issue them, and it says Federal Reserve Note on all of them, so in short no, they don"t coin money they issue paper, and these papers are not legal tender because they are illegal, but they do issue currency. "The Fed purchases legal tender and bonds from the US Treasury with nothing but correspondent values on a balance sheet." If I did that my check would bounce and I would go to Guantanamo Bay. "Another clause, gives congress the responsibility to set value of money "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin..." This clause does not apply to the Fed since no money is involved, only legal tender." Yes, it says congress, the Federal Reserve is NOT Congress. "Lastly, with the number of court cases with the Fed involved that have reached the Supreme Court, it would have been ruled unconstitutional by now. The Supreme Court's honorable justices only responsibility is to protect the Constitution, they would have ruled against the Fed by now if it were unconstitutional. The court is the final authority for the law of the land, decisions like Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Citizen's United, and Obamacare show that the court is always right, regardless of morality." Well there you go, you said it flat out "the court is always right regardless of morality, well, let"s all take an example from this man, and tattoo swastikas on our arms, then we can shut "Hail Hitler!" "With the Fed's constitutionality firmly established, next point of supported by republican government will be addressed. The United States is a republic not a democracy. The American republican form of government overwhelmingly supports the Fed, even bipartisan efforts to limit some of its powers are quickly stopped. The customer watch dog Senator Elisabeth Warren could not even get a bill to limit the Fed's powers as lender of last resort to pass the Senate. Another champion for the people Congressman Alan Grayson can't get an Audit the Fed bill through congress. This show the depth of support in America's republican government for the Fed." Again, just because the government says it, does not make it so. I am sorry, there is not enough space to finish my argument.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The circulation of pennies should be discontinued. You haven't provided any reasons why pennies should be removed from circulation, but consider this: the process of melting down pennies would incur significant expenses. Additionally, ceasing the production of pennies would likely lead to a decrease in their usage, making it more difficult for future collectors to obtain and preserve historical pennies. I can't think of any valid reasons to abandon pennies, as it would be costly and yield no tangible benefits. Unfortunately, I must cut my response short due to time constraints.

" 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!

There's something remarkable about your list about recessions. The USA went off the gold standard in 1933. (1) In the 82 years after that only one recession happened. In the 126 years before the gold standard 5 recessions happened. This brings me to my next argument: With the gold standard more recessions happen than without it. This is an expansion of my first argument: After that you claim the price of gold didn't change a lot around the 1700. Can you back that up with facts, because I'm not going to believe you that easily.Your third rebuttal is that the government can raise and lower taxes to regulate the economy. The government can only fix recessions if three thing happen: Congress and the president must agree to a plan that contains an appropriate remedy They must pass their plan in a timely manner The remedy must kick in fast Nailing all three things in practice is hard. To give an example, congress was still passing legislation in May 1977 to deal with the recession that ended in March 1975. (2) Plus, you didn't rebate my argument about the inflation. Could you please tell me whether you overlooked it or if you admit I made a valid point? Sources1) http://www.history.com...2) Bruce Bartlett, "What tax cuts can't do," New Your Times, December 20, 2000.

Hello,Today we will be debating the timeless arguments that I am sure many a teacher have argued before. As the Government (Pro/For) I am for the resolution; I must uphold what it says. Whoever accepts this debate must negate the resolution, in other words they must state the Pencils are Better than Pens. Before I go into the structure of the round I will propose some rules. I expect respect (Yes, I just rhymed in a debate round), no Ad Hominem attacks (If an opponent does commit Ad Hominem you can call them out on it ) and no Kritiks as usual. These rules ask little and if you, the debater, obey them, I will too. Round 1: Opening Statements, Acceptance Letters, Thanks, etc...Round 2: Opening Arguments, Present Cases, Opposition (Con/Against) can respond to Government's (Pro/For) arguments Round 3: Primary RebuttalsRound 4: Secondary Rebuttals (Tertiary for the Opposition if they choose to respond in Round 2), Closing Statements, etc...To the Voter: Any unsupported evidence (Meaning you do not include links or citations) can be disregarded and please vote for the debater who best upheld the argument not the person you immediately agree with.

I propose before you today, that we should begin using dead babies as a form of currency. Dead babies would make a good form of currency due to the fact that a babies corpse would eventually rot. This would encourage spending and thus stimulate the economy, creating new business opportunities and increasing employment. Babies are renewable and can be made by anyone, which in turn, would create equality of wealth among the currently divided social classes. One may also wish to use this as an opportunity to enact ethnic purging, which is normally desirable, less one desires marauding bands of black men raping and pillaging the local white neighborhoods. White babies would be worth the least amount, while African and Muslim babies would fetch a hefty price. This means more people would be killing black and Muslim babies, thus reducing their populations. Due to their population being reduced, we would experience various societal changes such as, lower crimes rates, lower poverty rates and cleaner air. As you can see using dead babies as a form of currency is not only economically stimulating, but allows us to push other, more malicious agendas in an attempt to end barbarism and savagery. Nigg on my friends.

"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?

Thank You CON! 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currency2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.4. Therefore, we should take this statement off of our currency.By saying, "In god we trust" is indicating that everyone trusts in god if they are in America. Not everyone believes in god in America. Or it would indicate that all atheists are second class citizens because of religion. I don't think my opponent will argue that no atheists exists in America, but I'll provide a source either way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5% of Americans are atheists. As for the second class citizen, the definition is here: http://dictionary.reference.com... "A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration." I'm not saying we need to take every dollar bill and erase the statement. Only that we must stop printing it on our bills. The Government is getting involved with religion, and- that's a problem.This brings us into the law of separation of Church and State."Separation of Church and State: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"-Jefferson.http://www.loc.gov.........The actual rule:"The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion" http://dictionary.reference.com... By saying we trust in god, the government favors religion. The government is supposed to be neutral on this subject, meaning it should not have any statements regarding god. Therefore we must take god off of our currency.

Firstly I have a few rebuttals to make. I include them in the first round (with the exception of the third rebuttal) because they lead up to, later arguments, or stand alone as arguments. The latter case applies especially to the first second and 3 Rebuttal 1: My opponent states in the second sentence of their argument that welfare isn’t helping anyone. This point is made from a stance that the people who are on welfare, could just go to work and get off it if they so chose. I’ll say more about that later, but right now I would just like to point out the obvious fallacy here. Clearly my opponent has not seen the studies on the distribution of welfare, because if she had, she would know that “91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households” [1. ] Nearly all of the people on welfare either can’t work or are already in working households, and truly are being helped by it. This doesn’t even get to cases like single mothers. Rebuttal 2: For the “taxpayers picking up the tab for a flawed system,” to be a valid argument, I think it is fairly clear that you have to prove that the system is flawed, which my first rebuttal and later points will address. Additionally, welfare is only 11% of government spending; taxpayers pay more for government pensions (25%. ) The only reason that we are discussing the welfare spending is that it has been extensively demonized by the right wing media [2. ] Rebuttal 3: money shouldn’t be going to churches because of separation of church and state, and the percent of GDP being spent on welfare is currently decreasing. Money isn’t being taken away from schools and parks by welfare, but by things that are on the rise such as defense spending. Rebuttal 4: Many people on welfare who are able-bodied are working part time or looking for work. In fact only 27 % of women on welfare were idle. “The rest, nearly three-fourths, combined welfare with low earnings (20 percent), worked some of the time and were on welfare between jobs (23 percent), worked limited hours and looked for work (7 percent), or looked for work the entire time they received welfare (23 percent). ” [3] Rebuttal 5: Children of parents on welfare are not encouraged to stay on it, given that most of those who are able-bodied and on welfare (as your source so rightly mentions) get off it. As empirical evidence, welfare spending is going down, but if children were to be incentivized this way you would see a cascade effect resulting in greater and greater numbers of people on welfare. Clearly this isn’t the case because “The 2011 survey [of the number of people on welfare] had 5.8 million. For 2013, we found 3.7 million [people on welfare]. ” [1] As a last comment (before I start my own case) your numbers of the amount of people on welfare are completely skewed. The census (where these numbers come from) double counts, including all members of households in which one person receives welfare. Additionally other types of benefits are included in the census study. Welfare recipients make up only 1.1% of the population, and the numbers of people on benefits are lower than you state as well. [4] Now I will present my own arguments. Contention 1: Welfare helps those who can’t work. Welfare is essential for the elderly and disabled. It would be extremely cruel to propose that we discontinue a program that helps those who can’t help themselves. As a civilized society, one measure of our merit must naturally be how we help our week, and care for our old. Furthermore, abolishing welfare would make poverty worse (I’ll state more reasons for this later,) because those who are elderly and disabled who are on welfare would now have to be supported by their families, increasing the strain on them. In many cases, these families are also impoverished (otherwise they wouldn’t have relatives in need of welfare,) and could not support their relatives; many would become homeless and many would suffer greatly. This is a massive impact because elderly and disabled persons who are at a far greater risk of death due to exposure etc. resulting from homelessness. If my opponent wishes to talk about those on subsidized housing and food stamps (which are not directly under the TANF welfare system,) the problem clearly becomes far worse. Contention 2: The problem isn’t that people are lazy; there just aren’t enough jobs to go around. My opponent claims that welfare allows for people to be lazy, however, as one of my rebuttals stated, this is simply not the case. Most people who can work that are on welfare look for work. If they are looking for work, one must ask what the real problem is. The problem is a lack of job vacancies. One example comes from Milwaukee; “Job vacancy surveys in the Milwaukee metropolitan area have found that even with an unemployment rate in the 4-5 percent range, there are three to five persons needing work for every available job. ” [3] To put that in perspective, in the last year, unemployment in America has wavered between 6.1 and 7.5 percent. People who are on welfare and are able-bodied aren’t lazy; it is literally impossible for all of them to have jobs. [5] Contention 3: People on welfare find it difficult to get jobs. Even most entry-level jobs require job experience and education. For those who had to drop out to help their impoverished families or stayed in high school instead of looking for work to aid their families have one or other of two problems. Either they don’t have the education or the work experience to apply for most jobs. Probably the most blatant example of this is a study done at McDonald's. The study, conducted in 1993, found that 14 people had applied for every job opening. The 13 out of 14 of them that were rejected found it immensely difficult to find work; so much so that 73% of them didn’t have work a full year after initial research was conducted. Additionally, young applicants had the most difficulty, because most people needed extensive experience to get a job at McDonald's. [6] To help the impoverished, disabled and elderly, and to sustain those who are unable to or find it difficult to acquire a job, lets keep and reinforce a system that brought us out of two depressions. Removing welfare would be cruel, rash and would put more stress on an already broken country. Instead of fighting welfare, lets look to the real causes of problems in America. Thank you, I look forward to your rebuttal. [1] . http://www.cbpp.org... [2] . http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [3] . http://www.njfac.org... [4] . http://www.statisticbrain.com... [5] . http://data.bls.gov... [6] Katherine S. Newman and Chauncy Lennon, Finding Work in the Inner City; How Hard is it Now? How Hard Will it be for AFDC Recipients? (New York, Columbia University, 1995. (via the 3rd source)

Thanks to Pro for his quick response. I'll address each of the three major points of contention separately. - (1) Power Abuse Pro claims that if the monarchy is allowed to persist, the UK may eventually come to be governed by a "bad" King or Queen who will abuse his/her power. However, as he himself admits, the monarch barely has any power. The monarch can NOT dissolve parliament -- that ability was taken away by Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011. The monarch also cannot simply appoint any Prime Minister they like -- their choice must be supported by the majority of the House of Commons. "In practice, prerogative powers are exercised only on the Prime Minister's advice -- the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, has control... The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (providing they command the support of the House)... the Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy ... three rights -- the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn'" [1]. The British monarch simply doesn't have enough power to engage in "abuse" of it, and therefore, a "bad" monarch poses no threat. (2) Economics I would like to clarify that this is the source I meant to cite under my last round's second argument [2]. Firstly, let's note that even if there are no economic benefits at all, the monarchy costs each individual Briton less than $5 per year, which is completely negligible -- especially considering the immense symbolic significance that the monarchy has. For the cause of maintaining Britain's most long-lived secular institution, $5 is easily worth it. Economics is basically a non-issue. But anyways, Pro is mistaken in his claims that "monarchy-related tourism" would survive sans the monarchy. It is true that some tourism would continue, since the monarchy's historical sites would still exist, but much of the revenue comes directly from the royal family's fan-base: William & Kate's wedding generated $165 million (from accommodation travel, nightlife, etc), and the birth of Baby Cambridge was directly responsible for a $383 million boost in consumer spending [2]. Given that, it is clear that a substantial portion of "monarchy-related tourism" is contingent upon the continued existence of the monarchy. Olga Khazan writes: "I'm skeptical that England's attractions could still draw the same numbers of tourists without the physical monarchs in place. Sure, people would still visit African savannas if they didn't have elephants, but probably not as many, or as often. Similarly, the royal family acts as a sort of charismatic megafauna for the entire royalty-tourism ecosystem" [2]. (3) Symbolism Pro pretty much concedes this point, instead arguing that the monarchy's pragmatic harms outweigh its symbolic value. However, as I've shown, there ARE no harms -- abuse is literally impossible, and the monarchy's presence actually generates a *surplus* of hundreds of millions of dollars. Even if we agree with Pro's tourism logic, a cost of $5 per citizen is not *nearly* enough to outweigh. There is no world in which abolishing the monarchy results in more good than bad. The resolution is negated. - 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.theatlantic.com...

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.