Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

Should the United States retain the penny in its currency system? The elimination of the penny might actually be advantageous, as it could lead to prostitutes adjusting their rates by reducing them by a nickel to facilitate exact change transactions.

I hate rigid round structures. It would be way better if I could just do my arguments and rebuttals together, but I'll go ahead and conform to the rules. Here's a short constructive case: - C1) Symbolic Value The British Monarchy serves as an essential symbol for the country's political unity and rich history. Having played an integral role in running the country for almost a millennium, the monarchy provides the British government with a sense of continuity which is very important for public perception of its legitimacy. "As England's oldest secular institution, it is intertwined with the nation's identity and political culture. When functioning properly, the monarchy embodies the best of English society. If abolished or radically changed, the nation would lose an essential element that solidifies its political system" [1]. The monarchy's immense symbolic significance to Great Britain is more than enough reason to justify keeping it around. C2) Economic Benefit People are crazy about the members of the British royal family -- they are more or less the most popular celebrities in the world, and like all celebrities, they tend to bring about massive amounts of consumer spending. The British Tourism Agency has calculated that Monarchy-related tourism generates an average of $767 million for the British economy every year. Compare that to even the most liberal estimates of the monarchy's public costs, which come out to $307 million per annum. Basic math reveals that the monarchy is an enormous economic boon to the UK, creating an annual surplus of $460 million. - The UK should remain a monarchy in order to (1) retain an essential piece of its history, culture, and political identity, and (2) reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. The resolution is negated. - 1. http://ashbrook.org... 2. http://www.express.co.uk...

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.

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

America should switch to the metric system. But that would be costly and very hard. Many people in America use the imperial system. By switching to an imperial system, America would be trying to change a system of measurement for every person in America. America shouldn't switch to the metric system because learning both the imperial and metric system would is a way to remember that there is more than one way to measure things. There is always more than one way to measure things. If you switched to metric, then you would have to change a lot of things. Planes would need to measure in kilometers instead of miles. Car GPS would need to be remade to adapt to the new system of measuring. That would be very expensive and very tedious.

"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.

Penn Gillette, Arnold Schwartzenburger, and Smosh have these things to say to the governor: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...;As it were... 1. Taxis and SplendaAmerica, let me ask you something about taxes: do you even care?Do you honestly care about the ridiculously stupid minor issure they call "taxes"? Do you really give two craps about what Governor Darkroast calls "spending"?? DO YOU EVEN LIFT???No, No, and of course you do :3You know what I think? I think we should get rid of all taxes. Let's just not tax people. I mean, everyone's going on, complaining about "Tax Day", let's just give the people what they want and stop taxing altogether. Nothing can possibly go wrong!!!! Hey. Hey, what exactly is a "red herin". It's called spell check, dick.And don't you dare diss my Bosnian Grandpa, or will literally cut your throat out and forcefeed it to you to make you feel the impossible pain of trying to swallow without a throat.I love you, America, and I love you, the reader, more than anyone else :32. ImmitationAmerica, Lemon13 here only cares about Average Joe and Little Suzy. I think that was quite obvious when he said in the third round:"Screw you, Nation. I love North Korea, I hate pony friendship, and I'm in a polygamist relationship with Average Joe and Sally."He SAID that. He DID. He doesn't love MEXICANS. He doesn't love AMERICANS. He hates you so much, he won't even let Mexicans mow your lawn. Sick.Whereas, I love you. I love Mexicans. I don't support polygamist bullsh!t. Let's love each other with friendship and kindness (but no homo).3. TraditionI totally agree with my opponent. With that, our platforms are the same. I just changed mine. Except without what he calls "white power". I believe in diversity, unlike Governor Rapeface over there.4. The Entire Idea of a Friendship-Based Equestrian Society, Including All Of Its Magical Benefits, Including (But Not Limited To) A Society Built On One's Natural Nalent, Scheduled Maintanence of the Weather (Which Makes Winter Wrap Up Day Different From Spring Break) And None of This Bullsh!t About Cutting the Cards That Makes Absolutely No Sense to Me, But Rather The Entire Idea of a Friendship-Based Equestrian Society, Including All Of Its Magical Benefits, Including (But Not Limited To) A Society Built On One's Natural Nalent, Scheduled Maintanence of the Weather (Which Makes Winter Wrap Up Day Different From Spring Break) And None of This Bullsh!t About Cutting the Cards That Makes Absolutely No Sense to Me.I dare you all to watch the season two premiere of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and tell me that it's not absolutely a flawless idea to form the world into an Equestrian wonderland. China, is on board. Governor, just shut up, shut up, just shut the fack up, oh my God, shut up, shut up, I will kill you, you freaking numbnuts, just shut up, oh my God, shut up.5. SpoonDon't listen to him, nation. He's just jealous because I have a bouncy castle and he doesn't.6. Korea Del NorteMy source isn't a meme. It's a certified, government, document. Oh my God, shut up.We need to kill Kim Jong Possible, Das Soh Raven, and Sak Un Codi before they start living the Suite Life on us and Call Us, Beep Us into smithereens. When will they do this? I'm not Psychic, I don't know.But Disney'ds to stop, now. We can't let the enemy have any more Pun.Conclusion:Honestly, I might turn some of you into ponies.

Thank you for this debate. The idea of a death penalty in my opinion has been a scare tactic, a lot of people don't kill other people because they would fear death itself. If we were to abolish the death penalty in ANY state, whether it be California (possibly) or Texas (Not a chance) the crime rate for crimes that would normally put you on death row would increase dramatically. $308 million is not that much in comparison to our current debt (sadly). You say improving prison conditions? We need to lower the comfortableness in jails, we don't need air conditioning and TV in a place meant for punishment [1]. Now of course we need to make sure nobody dies in jail, but it don't need to be extremely comfy. The fact that innocent people are convicted of felonies is sad, but abolishing the death penalty is not the answer, we need more investigations into crimes that involve death so that doesn't happen. We already use inmates as workers when they don't kill people, the pro argument says inmates on death row should work instead of die, the problem is that, like I said, will rise the crime rate. Because people are afraid of death, so they won't kill people knowing that they could die.

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

Since this is topic 3 of my points your responding to, I will use that number to represent it. 3. Con's theory here is that if businesses can pay less, they will. I'm sure they'd like to, but that is not the way it works. As I said in the first round, about 2 million people in the United States are on minimum wage, less than one percent of the population. The reason there aren't more is competition. Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward. The limit to how much an employee can be paid is how much wealth they produce. If a grape-picker is making their manager 8.00 and hour, but they cost 9.00, then your losing money, and it's not economical to keep that job. But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less. For the next round, were posting our questions, and then in round four we answer them. Thanks!

"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.


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

Should the United States retain the penny in circulation?
The discussion will revolve around whether or not the penny should remain in use. I will argue in favor of discontinuing the penny, while my opponent will argue for its retention. The debate will proceed as follows:
Round 1: Opening remarks
Round 2: Counterarguments
Round 3: Concluding statements
I am eager to engage in this debate with whoever my opponent may be, and I will now present my opening statement. The penny should be eliminated because it serves no practical purpose. It costs 1.7 cents to produce each penny, which means we are essentially wasting money every time we mint new currency. By phasing out the penny, we could save millions of dollars annually that could be directed towards more pressing needs.

Thank you for replying. I will counter your contentions as well as bring up other points. I realize that I should make myself more understandable and clear. A. My original argument stated that rounding exist for these reasons: 1. Speed of computation 2. Ease of computation I should go deeper and explain more: In computers and calculators, these methods are used for one of two reasons: speed of computation or usefulness in certain computer algorithms. Speed of computation and ease of computation introduce more round-off error and therefore are rarely used in statistics and science; they are still used in computer algorithms because they are slightly easier and faster to compute. But you said in your Round 2 "I concede your point that it works fine for single stage equations such as averages, conversions, statistics, etc." Therefore, it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to work with the metric system to get minimal accuracy if they are working with elementary calculus and mathematics in school. Then you said also in Round 2 "the margin of error introduced by rounding increases with the time complexity of the problem and is exaggerated through feedback and amplification. This accumulated error over time make the decimal/metric systems with rounding flawed. This flaw or amount of error is measurable." So you're talking about things much more sophisticated and complicated than elementary calculus and mathematics. Therefore, I should revise and say that rounding before college exist for the speed and ease for computation. B. What about rounding after college and in computers? Well, squeezing infinitely many real numbers into a finite number of bits into the computer requires an approximate representation. Although there are infinitely many integers, in most programs the result of integer computations can be stored in 32 bits. In contrast, given any fixed number of bits, most calculations with real numbers will produce quantities that cannot be exactly represented using that many bits. Therefore the result of a floating-point calculation must often be rounded in order to fit back into its finite representation. This rounding error is the characteristic feature of floating-point computation. That is why rounding exist. Since most floating-point calculations have rounding error anyway, does it matter if the basic arithmetic operations introduce a little bit more rounding error than necessary? I shall go back to guard digits. Guard digits were considered sufficiently important by IBM that in 1968 it added a guard digit to the double precision format in the System/360 architecture (single precision already had a guard digit), and retrofitted all existing machines in the field. Of course I can't provide the proof of guard digits because the maximum number of characters allowed is 8,000. But you can see the proof of guard digits here: http://docs.sun.com... It is not uncommon for computer system designers to neglect the parts of a system related to floating-point. This is probably due to the fact that floating-point is given very little (if any) attention in the computer science curriculum. This in turn has caused the apparently widespread belief that floating-point is not a quantifiable subject, and so there is little point in fussing over the details of hardware and software that deal with it. The website http://docs.sun.com... has demonstrated that it is possible to reason rigorously about floating-point. For example, floating-point algorithms involving cancellation can be proven to have small relative errors if the underlying hardware has a guard digit, and there is an efficient algorithm for binary-decimal conversion that can be proven to be invertible, provided that extended precision is supported. The task of constructing reliable floating-point software is made much easier when the underlying computer system is supportive of floating-point. Rounding must exist, because there are lots of numbers that can't represented by 32 bits. That is also another reason why the metric system is not garbage. It's the computers that can't store infinitely many real numbers that cause the existence of rounding. C. In mathematics, the recurring decimal 0.999… denotes a real number equal to 1. There are two debates about this and the pros always win: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Pros always win those debates because the equality has long been accepted by professional mathematicians and taught in textbooks. Various proofs of this identity have been formulated with varying rigour, preferred development of the real numbers, background assumptions, historical context, and target audience. I agree that a good debate to start would be: Metric System versus U.S units. D. On February 25th, 1991, a Patriot Missile system that had been running for over 100 hours at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia had failed to intercept a SCUD missile. The SCUD hit an Army Barracks, killing 28 Americans. On the next day, the Bug Fix for the system arrived at Dhahran. The reason this bug occurred is because of a problem with storing time in a 24-bit register. The problem is that time is stored to an accuracy of 1/10th of a second, but a 24-bit register does not have enough precision to store 0.1, so a small fraction of each second is lost. The result is that the register used to keep track of time is off by 0.0001% of the amount of time that the system has been in operation. The problem is that computers do not store information as a standard decimal. Instead, they use binary code, which can not accurately store 1/10th of a second. It's the computer's limitations of having finite bits that result in inaccuracy and inconsistency. E: Now I must explain why the metric system existed in the first place. The metric system was designed with several goals in mind: 1. Neutral and Universal: the designers of the metric system meant to make it as neutral as possible so that it could be adopted universally. 2. Replicable: the usual way to establish a standard was to make prototypes of the base units and distribute copies. This would make the new standard reliant on the original prototypes which would be in conflict with the previous goal since all countries would have to refer to the one holding the prototypes. The designers developed definitions of the base units such that any laboratory equipped with proper instruments should be able to make their own models of them. The original base units of the metric system could be derived from the length of a meridian of the Earth and the weight of a certain volume of pure water. They discarded the use of a pendulum since its period or, inversely, the length of the string holding the bob for the same period changes around the Earth. Likewise, they discarded using the circumference of the Earth over the Equator since not all countries have access to the Equator while all countries have access to a section of a meridian. 3. Decimal multiples: the metric system is decimal, in the sense that all multiples and sub multiples of the base units are factors of powers of ten of the unit. Fractions of a unit are not used formally. The practical benefits of a decimal system are such that it has been used to replace other non-decimal systems outside the metric system of measurements; for example currencies. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... And these goals doesn't NOT include creating a perfect international system that can't be improved as long as humanity lives. Therefore it is not garbage because it can be used internationally and scientifically and is not limited to one country, like the U.S. units system. One cup of coffee may sound good to Americans, but in Europe, one liter of coffee sounds a lot better.

If a system has to be corrected to produce accurate results then that system is flawed. I submit the rounding function as the corrective function of the metric system. Therefore, the metric system with rounding is FLAWED. Operations involving rounding must be "fixed" by using a rounding function of some type. Multi step equations using the metric system are extremely succeptable to compound rounding errors. Proof: Sum(Product) * Markup% <> Sum(Product * Markup%) Research: Excel SpreadSheet Example of Compound Rounding Errors Across 100 Items Copy each formula and paste down the columns 100 times. Column A[1..100](ItemAmount) = ROUND(RANDBETWEEN(0, 10) + RAND(),2) Column B[1..100](CostPlusAmount) = ItemAmount*CostPlusPercent Column C[1..100](ItemTotalAmount) = ItemAmount + CostPlusAmount Column D[1..100](AdjustedItemAmount) = ROUND(ItemTotalAmount,2) Column E[1..100](RoundedAmount) = ItemTotalAmount - AdjustedItemAmount Column F[1](AccumulatedErrorAmount) = E[1] Column F[2..100](AccumulatedErrorAmount) = F[N-1] + E[N] CHART(F[1..100) on the X axis of your graph a Change to a blank cell will result in an new set of 100 random items. The result that column E will contain an entirely new and RANDOM series. The accumulated margin of Error between the two functions Sum(ItemAmount) * Markup% and Sum(ItemAmount* Markup%) across different sets of items will vary randomly between -0.05 and +0.05 cents. Debate? Why should we use the metric system with it's inherent flaws? Because it lets simpletons count with their fingers? Because it's what all the COOL mathematicians use? Everything in nature is proportional, it would seem some other system, maybe a fractional system to be a much better solution than the metric system with it's rounding function and the chaotic nature imposed on every function that uses it. I for one loath rounding for anything other than SINGLE step equations such as approximations, averages, and statistics. It'll get you close. I would like to debate this with someone who understands the rounding functions such as truncate, and other floor/ceiling functions

Okay, you do make a good point there. You win. If Kids wanted to change courses they would have to start from the beginning and it would be insanely expensive. But i still hate common core. And, Yes socalism has and never will work out unless the world becomes one socalist country.

I will therefore keep this last round brief. The 3 arguments my opponent put forward were: 1) The monarchy costs the taxpayers money. 2) The treasury would benefit from the abolition of the monarchy. 3) The monarchy has no place in 'modern' British society. I disproved all three of these by providing evidence that: 1) The taxpayers actually make a profit from the monarchy 2) The treasury wouldn't be able to confiscate the wealth of the monarchy as it is not the proceeds of crime, but an inheritance. And that seeing as the taxpayers make a profit from the monarchy, to abolish them would lose us money. 3) The majority of people in all surveys support the monarchy, and can relate to the monarchy. Thus showing that British society wants the monarchy, and so they have a place in that society. Thanks for reading.

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

No worries on the time as you were within the limits. Now on to the debate... I assume that this (your statement in the abortion debate that brought about my debate) is all that is required to justify the goodwill portion of the argument: "I'd much rather charge everyone to make sure people get the care they need than depend on people's goodwill. And for that matter, in hard times when people need help most, wouldn't people stop donating in order to keep their own families afloat? And wouldn't that essentially strand the poor?" You are quite correct that no one will punish you for not donating to the Salvation Army. However, why are you positing that statement as being inherently undesirable? Is it morally righteous to punish someone for doing as they please with money they earn? When did the welfare of the poor become the obligation of those with wealth? There is a fine line separation here between the natural instinct of charity (which is founded on individual choice) and that of an obligation? "What makes you so sure that the only reason people don't donate to charity is because of taxes?" I hardly implied that as the sole rationale. I merely pointed out that when you remove a certain portion of wealth from an individual, they will have to make choices on how to use that, now reduced, wealth. As such, to expect the same level of charity from the same individual who now has less wealth is, I think obviously, ridiculous. "New Orleans is still literally rotting, and people need money almost as much as they did right after the hurricane. However, no one donates any more, because we've essentially forgotten about it." I would hardly attest the state of New Orleans to the private charity of Americans, but rather to the incompetence of their government. The same fools that did not maintain levees in a city below sea level were placed in charge of its reconstruction. Did you expect a better result? "Again, people in power may not like to help people, but they are legally obligated to." A legal obligation to do something is hardly a moral justification. "And since when is helping the poor not ‘public good', anyway? Besides, a lot of the things you want to get rid of do benefit you anyway. Social security? Medicare?" A public good is defined as the marginal cost equaling zero, therefore the price is zero. You can hardly place welfare or any other "help to the poor" as a public good precisely because the addition of one more poor person increases the cost by a nonzero amount. On Social Security, there is a question as to whether or not it will actually be financially viable when I retire (entirely dependent on how the economy performs into the unforeseeable future)and Medicare is in a questionable position given the rising cost of health care despite (most likely because of) the growing interference of the government over the last 35 years. " "If those families will not provide charity because of their financial situation, how does that imply taking their money would be better? Taking the money they cannot afford to give would make the situation much worse." Simple. Taxes are levied on everyone.If you get rid of taxes, then only the people who want to donate will. Therefore, less people will be giving money to the poor." No, it is not that simple because you simply dodged the issue. If you tax the same person who cannot afford to give charity because of their financial situation then you will do them harm. Besides, your line of reasoning does not imply that less money will be given in charity. If, for the only reason, that every time the government has lowered taxes they have received more revenue (there is obviously a point at which this will no longer be true, but for the tax cuts of the 20th century this holds true). "Not to mention the fact that you are also taxing the rich, and regardless of the financial situation of the country there are always rich people to be taxed. Even during the great depression, there was a booming upper class." No, just read about the Wiemar Republic and you can come across a financial situation that destroyed the rich and poor alike. Also, the "booming" upper class is a farce. The wealth of the country dropped considerably during the Great Depression. Those who were wealthy before the Great Depression (who were out of the stock market by the crash, and had subsequently protected there wealth in certain banks or commodities) maintained there "growing" wealth largely because of the great deflation experienced at that time due to certain Federal Reserve policies. "So, you people seem to have a lot of problems with taxing individuals. But couldn't you lower taxes on individuals and raise them on corporations, who, at the moment, give the country practically nothing? What do you have against that?" I have a problem with the income tax, given the self incrimination it requires. Besides, there are taxes you can raise that do not require the ridiculous tax code we currently have, but all this is off topic. "For that matter, without the government organizing things, how are you going to spend those donations? The government, if nothing else, keeps things well organized. If you created groups to sort out donations and give them to the right people you'd need a lot of volunteers. And people tend to have lives, so you're likely not going to get that many people who want to work for free." For one, the problem of organization of charity has been solved already...that should be obvious as there already exist many private charities (and they have existed for quite some time). The government is hardly a model of efficiency. In fact, that is the main reason to keep the government out of anything that can be handled by market forces. If anything, the government effectively organizes inefficiency. The Salvation Army seems to have a lot of volunteers, and you don't actually need volunteers as Goodwill and Arc Thrift Stores demonstrate everyday. "And here's my favorite point. In how many situations have these libertarian ideals worked? How many countries out there have implemented this successfully? Most of the other developed countries out there are downright socialist compared to us. I mean, libertarian ideas work great in theory, but hey, so did communism." Wow! I am really disappointed. The Constitution is practically a model of a libertarian government. It worked quite well, for those it applied to, until people of your ideological bent gained power. I would safely bet everything I have that if we were to follow the original interpretation (now that we have established the equal rights of all individuals) that our country would be in an enviable position compared to now. The fact remains that liberty is the exception and not the rule to human existence. This is hardly a damnation of its efficacy. By the way, communism was never a great theoretical idea. Marx completely mistook where valuation comes from and so founded much of his theory on a fallacy.

Point One 1. We should not lie on our currency, or imply that people are second class citizens on our currencyIn 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. Point Two2. If there is a lie, or some sort of indication that someone else is a second class citizen, we should take it off.Since I feel like I addressed most of this in the first point the only thing I'm going to add is that no matter what we do someone is going to complain about the 'In God We Trust' print on our currency. Currently you are debating that Atheists are feeling discriminated against for having it on there, but did you think that maybe the 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. Point Three 3. There is a statement on our currency that is both a lie, and it implies that atheists are second class citizens.Atheists would not be the only people affected by this is this is indeed the problem that we face. It makes me wonder if you yourself are an Atheist (Though this is just out of curiosity and has nothing to do with the debate at hand)In addition to your definition of second-class citizen I would like to add my own as an elaboration to yours.Second-Class Citizen: A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. [3]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. Point Four4. 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. I cannot take Jefferson's quote into consideration since it is not in the first amendment of separation of church and state. I also cannot take your dictionary reference of separation of church and state since it is a summary of the amendment and not the actual quote. I will, however, provide the amendment for you. Separation of Church and State"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [1]I will also provide article VI as it pertains to this debateArticle VI"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]

Since my opponent has forfeited this round I will take the liberty of posting definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com...: 1. the third letter of the English alphabet, a consonant. 2. any spoken sound represented by the letter C or c, as in cat, race, or circle. Arguments: Even though the letter C in some cases may not be quintessential to the English Language the prohibition or act of abolishing of the letter C would be a completely unnecessary set back for the English speaking world. I will assume the resolution means prohibition across the world. The international community would have to expect the world to give up the letter C by decree. This is absurd. So must work, time and money would be lost to simply get rid of a questionably inefficient letter. Keep in mind my opponent has the BOF so my argument is merely supplementary and I win this debate by default unless he/she posts a sound argument I cannot refute. Thanks to my opponent again for the debate.

I want to give credit to my opponent for arguing many sides to the argument. There is not always one side to every story which my opponent takes into account. My opponents statements about the different types of prices are completely true. And yes, on that last sentence, I did not word it properly, but that's what I meant. On Inflation "However, how does the Federal Reserve buying securities from banks, who then simply hoard the cash in their vaults because of the market interest rate (I will explain the zero lower-bound if challenged) cause consumers to be unable to buy as much output?"Your argument is false. Only recently has the FED started to keep its money in reserves. This has only been in effect since the new QE2 has gone into effect. And that also has major problems with running up the nations debt. Also this has not decreased the nations money supply. in fact, it is still increasing. So no, inflation is still a tax because the government receives the lost purchasing power of the people, and it is still happening.http://www.dallasnews.com...And, no that is false. Inflation is a regressive tax. This isn't the first time this has happened. This started in Europe with their central banks hundreds of years ago. They realized they could only tax the people so much until they had a revolt on their hands. They figured out that the natural tax ceiling was about 44-48% They then created a central bank and were able to take in, at some points in time, up to 80% in taxes. And about a 3-4% inflation rate helping the poor. I really don't know where you got this information. If you could cite resources, it would be very helpful. And I had not heard of the FED coming in to help in 1986. But, even still, these kind of economic crashes are natural in every government. My main argument, is that the FED does more harm than good, not to mention the corruption that occurs within it. It still dilutes the worth of our dollar. Sourceshttp://libertarianinvestments.blogspot.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.dallasnews.com...

I believe are current economic ways are doomed to fail because they haven't been kept up to date. and instead of us getting richer and richer the us and the world are getting poor I believe I have a better way to this by making a new system of how are economics work


Question: Should the Penny Remain in Circulation?

The use of pennies in the US monetary system should be discontinued. The argument that abolishing the penny is akin to abolishing the American flag is a flawed comparison. While the penny holds sentimental value, it does not serve its primary function of facilitating exchange efficiently. The true value of a coin lies in its utility, not its symbolic meaning. The penny's sentimental value does not justify its continued production and circulation. The penny's role as a monetary medium is diminished by its low face value, making it inefficient for transactions. The elimination of the penny would not hinder the economy or the functioning of the monetary system. In fact, it would simplify transactions and reduce the hassle of dealing with small change. The success of penny drives and charitable donations using pennies does not justify the continued production of the penny. The penny's low value and inefficiency outweigh its sentimental value. The penny should be retired and placed in a museum as a relic of the past. Thank you for debating with me and taking the time to read our arguments. Have a Merry Christmas.

I would like to share a quick little anecdote to illustrate the absolute and blatant monstrosity of what my dear opponent proposes. Marie, a senior at an excellent university, was in a hurry for her exam. After kissing her grandmother goodbye, she rushed out the door of her shoddy apartment, her "Protect the Rainforest" and "Save the Dolphins" pamphlets spilling out of her backpack (for she was a member of these charities, including others), and her dark green sweater only halfway pulled over her. As she ran, she quickly remembered that she needed to pay for the Scantron sheets in order to take her exam. Knowing there was no money in her apartment (she knew this quite well in fact, quite well), she prayed that there would be enough change in her car to cover the $2.15 fee. As she got to her 1975 Ford Pinto, she noticed someone had spray-painted "Im Poor" against the rusty, decaying exterior. Tears came to her eyes, but it was only when she attempted to open the door, and the handle broke off into her hands, did she actually begin to cry. And yet she knew she had to carry on, for if she missed the exam all her hard work would come undone. Opening the door through a previously smashed-in window, she got inside and started the car. As the engine slowly warmed, she looked desperately for any money she could, but found only bits of broken glass and some old books. After having to kick the gearstick into 1st, the car slowly began to sputter along. With only 11 minutes before her exam would begin, she quickly came to the avenue where the bank was. Noting that parking would be nearly impossible to find at this hour, not to mention would sap all her time, she pulled to the right hand lane, next to the parked cars, and ran toward the ATM. As she neared the kiosk, however, two uniformed figures walked into her path, cocked their modified shotguns loudly, aimed, and shot her in the knees. She crumpled to the floor, blood splattered everywhere, and died. Speaking of the incident later, for which he was touted as a local hero, one of the officers said: "Only the 'andicapped can do what she did...'if an able bodied person does the same, let's give them a proper excuse to do so – traffic wardens should be instructed to f*****g spastic the c***s by blasting their f*****g kneecaps off.'" Are human lives really so worthless, so devoid of any value that this measure could possibly be ok? Is simply stopping at an ATM really the infraction that deserves the most cruel, ultra-violent and inhumane death sentence of any civilized society? Didn't thinks so.

I will divide my arguments into 3 main points, the first of which I think is critically important. P1- Death Penalty doesn't deter crimeIf the death penalty should remain in the US, then the death penalty should deter crime. That is the point, a punishment is a deterrent, and to justify keeping a deterrent (especially an unethical deterrent like killing people), it should work. However, the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent in the US. A study from 1990-2009 took homicide rates and compared the states who had abolished the death penalty with those who hadn't. The states without the penalty have far better homicide records. They have had lower per capita homicide rates consistently, at times having up to 46% less homicides. They have seen a growing gap in homicide rates, with non penalty states having less on average. A comparison with non-penalty states and neighboring penalty states also shows that the non-penalty states have lower homicide rates; the best example is Iowa/Missouri, with 2.5 and 8 homicides per capita respectively (guess which one has the death penalty? ). An interesting example of a failure to deter crime is California, which saw an average increase in homicide of only 4.8% when there was no death penalty between 1968-91, while in 1952-67 saw an average increase in homicide of 10%. While the main cause of crime certainly wasn't the death penalty, the death penalty clearly wasn't doing anything to deter crime. Another obvious example is that as a whole country, the US has a 4.8 per capita homicide rate, whilst North, West, and Southern Europe (these are actual divisions, Eastern Europe has 2 states with death penalty so they aren't counted here) have homicide rates between 1 and 1.5 per capita, and all states in these regions have abolished the death penalty. And law enforcement officials do not believe that the death penalty is a good deterrent for criminals. When surveyed about detriments to law enforcement, only 2% believed that stifling the death penalty hurts law enforcement. A 1995 survey thought that only 1% thought that expanding the death penalty would reduce crime. It seems fairly clear that the death penalty doesn't discourage crime, and since that is the objective of any punishment, it seems that the death penalty does not work as intended. When coupled with the other issues, there is a strong case for abolishing the death penalty. . http://bit.ly...http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...http://nccadp.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... P2- The state makes mistakes in many areasIn addition to not deterring crime, the death penalty If the state is to carry out the execution of anyone, then the state should be held to high expectations. In a situation where the life of the defendant is very literally at stake, the margin for error is 0, and if it can't be 0 then there shouldn't be a death penalty. A 2008 study estimated that 4% of the total population of death row inmates (around 7000) would be exonerated if they received proper defense. They based their finding on the exoneration of 117 inmates over a period of 1974-2008, the resources applied to these appeals and the errors in convictions. The fact that 117 people were sentenced to death and later found to be innocent is scary enough, but the possibility of an additional 200 some innocent people being sentenced to death is scarier. And there are a number of death sentences that were carried through despite serious doubt about the guilt of the executed. For example, Gary Graham was convicted for killing a robbery and murder outside of a supermarket, with testimony from only 1 eyewitness who claimed to have seen his face for a few seconds from 30-40 feet away. 2 other witnesses, store employees, said they had seen the killer and it was not Graham, but the defense lawyer never called these men as witnesses. Jurors interviewed later said they would not have convicted him had they heard all of the evidence. Graham was executed in 2000. Leo Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Florida based on a confession he gave after hours of interrogation. Later, he claimed the confession was coerced. The officer who arrested him and the interrogator were later kicked off the force for ethical violations, and colleagues of the arresting officer said that he used torture. Witnesses also said that another man was the killer but Jones was executed in 1998. Until the criminal justice system can near guarantee that death sentences will not be erroneously given or that innocent people will not be executed without an opportunity to rectify possible errors, the state should not give out the death penalty. All of these problems, all possibility for error and the killing of innocent people, is prevented by simply abolishing the death penalty, which doesn't deter crimes anyway. Other issues come up in execution with the 8th amendment, which protects from "cruel and unusual punishment". Although executions are not necessarily cruel or unusual, there are often botched executions, especially with lethal injections (the main form of execution in the US), which make executions cruel. For example, a recent botched execution in OK of Clay Lockett, in which the victim (for lack of a better word) was knocked out by the first drug, ended up taking 40 minuets with Lockett mumbling, trying to get up, writing in pain and eventually dying of an unintended heart attack. That undeniably qualifies as cruel. If the state cannot administer capital punishment constitutionally there should be no capital punishment, period. . http://www.pnas.org...http://onforb.es...http://bit.ly...http://on.wsj.com...P3- It's expensiveMultiple studies done by various states have shown that the death penalty sentences are more expensive than life without parole sentences. California did a study in 2008 that showed their current system of capital punishment cost $137 million a year. To reform the system so that it would avoid the type of errors mention in P2, the cost would be $237.2 million. Restricting the crimes that would qualify for the death penalty would result in a system that cost only $130 million. However, the cost of a life with no parole system with no death penalty would only cost $11.5 million a year. That is roughly a tenth of the cost of their current system. That's a lot of dough for a system which has convicted innocent people and does not deter crime. A Maryland study, a state with 5 total executions, found that a case for the death penalty cost $3 million to taxpayers, $1.9 million more than non-death cases. A Nevada study found that death penalty murder cases cost $229,800 for a public defender and $287,250 for appointed counsel. That turns out to be $170,000 and $212,000 more per case compared to non-death penalty murder cases. Federal cases involving the penalty cost on average $620,000, 8 times more than non death penalty cases. Additionally, when defendants spend less than $320,000 on defense, they are guilty 44% of the time, whereas if they spend more they are only guilty 19% of the time. Underrepresented people are more likely to be found guilty because of cost rather than actual guilt. These are only a few of very numerous examples, which I can get into later but I am near the character limit. The point is that death penalty cases cost more to the states than non-death penalty cases, and we have already established that the death penalty do not have a deterring effect (P1) and there is error in the system when there should absolutely not be (P2). Is it really worth the extra cost? I think not. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.ccfaj.org...

1. This is irrelevant. Just because one thinks we do not commonly use something doesn't mean that we should get rid of it. It leads to many other problems as mentioned earlier. The popularity of the letter itself is irrelevant to the debate, and my opponent does not even show why we would care about it's popularity. 2. This is also irrelevant. The fact that we could easily replace Q with KW has no bearing over whether we should or not. Just because Juggle could easily get rid of Airmax doesn't mean they should. In addition, it would still be grammatically incorrect to replace the letter Q with KW in almost all words. People would be repentant to change and it would be a silky rule to enforce, causing members to leave. Because it would cause an uproar among the community, we can conclude that it would not be easy to replace. 3. Again, my opponent fails to connect how this is related to the debate. Sure, languages have changed over the years. How does that prove that it is beneficial to ban Q? In addition, my opponent claims that it would be easier to read and memorize, but this is again wrong as most would struggle reading something once the spelling has been changed to something they are not familiar to, and DDO does not have any interest in teaching people their ABC's. My opponent makes assertions that removing Q would be beneficial but fails to explain how. Thanks for reading this far! Good luck Pro.

Sorry, my mistake for not understanding the resolution. But you still have made one crucial mistake. You have nothing for me to argue. You have posted no argument. Just sources and quotes. You do understand in a debate posting quotes is totally pointless because you give no reasoning behind them? If you explained and showed how the quotes supported your arguments then that would be good. But yet you have failed to do so. So heres why Walmart SHOULD NOT raise its price to $1-2. 1. You don't have to work at Walmart. - Walmart is a business. That is it. It isn't the government. We have the right in the U.S.A (which I suppose is where you are talking about.) Business's can create whatever payment for their employees if they wish. If they don't like it, then they can get another job or quit. 2. Raising prices wouldn't change anything. - Common economic knowledge. If one place raises the minimum wage, then others will, therefore increasing the price of items all around the country/state. So doing this won't make much of a difference. 3. Walmart is entry level work and it isn't a true skill to be deserved of a higher raise. - Anybody can work at Walmart. It takes no true skill to have a living wage. If someone had a skill such as an enjineer, artist, etc. Then those are living wage jobs because you demonstrate potential and not just putting items on a shelf or bagging someones groceries. Voter keep this in mind, I have shown arguments and sources to back up my arguments. What my opponent has failed to do is present an argument for his case. Simply putting quotes without any explanation is a big no-no when it comes to debate. Thank you! Source(s): http://usconservatives.about.com... http://www.usnews.com...

This debate was interesting and worth our time. Though my opponent had a better argument, I admit to having no resources to back me up.

First of all, you did not refute my whole entire point because cryptocurrency is the future of money. My next argument is that it lower fees because you do not have to pay taxes. This is according to Ameer Rosic.com I already refuted your point in my last speech. Since you did your first and second speech you can no longer add a new point. You FAILED to refute my first point completely.

My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.

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...

Furthermore, five minute arguments are bad.I think I met my burden of proof, though.Here's a picture.

Since this is topic 3 of my points your responding to, I will use that number to represent it. 3. Con's theory here is that if businesses can pay less, they will. I'm sure they'd like to, but that is not the way it works. As I said in the first round, about 2 million people in the United States are on minimum wage, less than one percent of the population. The reason there aren't more is competition. Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward. The limit to how much an employee can be paid is how much wealth they produce. If a grape-picker is making their manager 8.00 and hour, but they cost 9.00, then your losing money, and it's not economical to keep that job. But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less. For the next round, were posting our questions, and then in round four we answer them. Thanks!