The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Should America become a paperless economy in terms of money?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,812 times Debate No: 15146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I believe that with the way our economy is going, it would be beneficial for America to become a paperless monetary society


My opponent has not outlined a plan or clarified anything about the resolution so I have nothing to refute and I don't have room to defend paper money. However, you should vote him down for the following reason.
The character limit is only 1000 and nothing about the resolution will be debated for this first round for of the lack of clarity. This means that there will only be 2000 characters for each debater to debate such a complex topic. This is clearly inadequate and, with the influx of new debaters, debates like this will continue unless you vote for me. 1000 characters is not the default, so the instigator must have knowingly changed it from 8000. Vote for me so that new debaters will realize that they must use appropriate settings. Debate is a competitive activity, and change won't occur unless the debater who uses poor settings looses. This is shown even in this debate, in the comments, it was recommended that the voting period be changed and it was not changed. Negate for change
Debate Round No. 1


you seem to be debating more for why you should get a vote over my character limit then actually debating with facts. Your argument to why you should get votes lacks relevance when it comes to the issue being debated. As for the issue,

I believe that instead of carrying around paper cash, it would be easier to make each person's license a scannable card of sorts. It would reduce issues of illegal immigrants who dont have identification and would keep people from spending past their means. If they cannot afford something with the amount of money on their card then they cannot get it.


Extend the off

Supershort DA- I can do this because there was no plan in the 1st round
Uniqueness- Tourism exists in the status quo, generating money (Over 56 Million International Visitors Spent 122 Billion - Departmet of Commerace
Link- Plan removes cash, which is a primary way for tourists to spend money. Tourists staying for a week couldn't get a drivers license.
Impact- Loss of tons of money in taxes and a hurt to the economy.

On the plan
  • Carrying cash isn't hard
  • Illegal immigrants spend which helps the economy, which is a good thing, plan further huts the economy
  • The government doesn't have the right ot determine how people spend their money.
  • If a driver's license were stolen, it would be devastating. The people theoretically, couldn't even pay for a fee for a new one because all their cash would be inacessible. This means that a criminal could easily blackmail someone by stealing their driver's license.

Negate. There is no compelling reason for this plan. Also, negate for charcter limit
Debate Round No. 2


for your on the plan Im failing to see the relevance in any of it. The argument is if American should become paperless. Not once did I bring up the debate point of is carrying cash hard. You are straying from the point. Carrying cash is not hard, but would be easier if it was all on one card. Illegal immigrants spend which helps the economy but most if not all do not pay taxes which would be even more income we are missing out on. Another mute point is "the government doesn't have the right to determine how people spend money". This has no relevance to our argument. Sure losing a license would be devastating, but just like losing a debit card you can cancel it and have the money transferred over.

You need to get over the character limit and worry more about the relevance. None of your information has anything to do with why we should become paperless in terms of our economy. It seems to be all about inconvenience and leave facts that beg the question of relevance.


Voting Issues
  1. He dropped my theory argument from the first round. Vote off of it. It is reject the debater, so it is sufficient to vote neg
  2. The tourism argument. He has conceded that tourists would be unable to spend money in a paperless economy and that this would significantly hut the economy and taxes. This outweighs any of his impacts
  3. His only pieces of offense are convenience and illegal immigrants, which I have addressed. He has not provided any facts or numbers about illegal immigrants and hasn't shown why the taxes lost outweigh the economic benefit. Further, he has not shown why illegal immigrants would become citizens in a paperless world, so this impact is non existent because we will loose the tax revenue either way. It is non-unique. Convenience is a wash or more in my favor, up to you. He has conceded that a loss of it would be devastating and that someone would be unable to get a new card and would be caught in a quandary
Thus he has no offense and I outweigh

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RougeFox 7 years ago
My argument simply is that illegal immigrants help the economy. I don't know why you are trying to make is something else.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Pro had the obligation to spell out clearly what he is proposing and to make arguments defending it. He didn't do that. The late hint that drivers licenses would be used as cash cards is ridiculous, as many people don't have drivers licenses. A reasonable case could be made for some sort of rechargable cash card, like a credit card, but Pro didn't do that.

I call low-character-limit debates "twitter debates." Once the debate is accepted it's too late to complain about it. Just don't accept. Such debates are usually not very good, because Pro doesn't have enough space to make a case that justifies changing the status quo. Con should point out all the inadequacies and ambiguities. In this debate, Con did that and still had space left to complain about the character limit.
Posted by reddj2 7 years ago
So they do the same things that citizens do? Pay for goods and abuse Social welfare ?
Posted by RougeFox 7 years ago
They do.

Randy Capps, a senior researcher at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute, agrees that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants varies depending on how you measure taxes and service costs. The Urban Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan policy research and educational organization that aims "to promote sound social policy and public debate on national priorities," according to the group's Web site.

"To me, there is one simple bottom line," Dr. Capps said. "There probably are costs, but they are not that big because undocumented immigrants pay taxes. And the costs are much smaller compared to the economic benefits."

The money that illegal immigrants spend on goods and services in their local communities and around the state "reverberates throughout the whole economy, creates more jobs, more spending and more revenue," he said. "The scale of economic benefit far outweighs any costs on the fiscal side."

Dr. Capps co-authored a 2007 study on immigrants in Arkansas. The study, which was funded by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, found that the total economic impact of Arkansas' 100,000 immigrants (of which 51 percent are undocumented) on the state economy is nearly $3 billion. The Texas Comptroller study found that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants living in Texas in 2005 contributed $17.7 billion to the state economy.
Posted by reddj2 7 years ago
"Illegal immigrants spend which helps the economy, which is a good thing, plan further huts the economy"
No they don't...
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
Pro could surprise his opponent by saying that we replace paper money with gold or silver.
If he says that money economy should be removed, he will lose.
Posted by Amethist17 7 years ago
how in the heck would tht even work?
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
Too biased, pro doesnt reveal what he suggest to replace with the current money economy.
Posted by darkkermit 7 years ago
@gbellza. Are you arguing for a return to the gold standard (or other precious metal) or do you just think that fiat money should not be paper (digital I presume what you are thinking)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
"The voting period will last 3 days."

I highly recommend increasing this so that your debate gets voted on. 3 days is a short voting period.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's plan is not prima facia, since only people who have drivers licenses cold use money. The character limit is irrelevant.