The Instigator
davidbo
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
crackofdawn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Amero is good idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,527 times Debate No: 6250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

davidbo

Pro

In 1971 President Nixon abolished the 'gold standard' that supported the US Dollar. This action rid all actual value of American currency, thus, causing an inevitable downwards spiral of the US Dollar in the future. Judgment day has come.
There is no doubt the economy is in trouble, in October of 2008 a majority of US stocks dropped about 50%, unemployment seemed to peak and economically the country did not seem as though it could get any worse.
Unfortunately for the American people, this was not true. As we sit in mid December unemployment rises while stocks make a steady downhill sled.

Rumor has come out about the idea of a North American Union (NAU (I like to pronounce it 'now")). NAU would incorporate Canada, The US and Mexico into a state similar to the European Union (EU) while still maintaining individual borders all nations would have a weak central government and unified currency. This unified currency would be known as the Amero. The Amero would hold an strong value at all times due to its gold and silver backing, become more recognized than the US Dollar in the Global Market and assist The US in overcoming this global recession.
When President Nixon rid the nation of the gold standard he basically handed us an adjustable rate mortgage, free to go up and down as the economy pleases, with no real backing. While this idea was great in the 70's when the economy seemed to have a constant high, nowadays the value of our dollar took a plunge with Freddie and Fannie. A backing of gold and silver to our currency would anchor its value, still allowing to it to rise and fall, but at a controlled rate and with a near impossible chance of failure (something larger than WWII would be necessary to put a resource backed currency down to 0).
While the US Dollar was the favored currency of trade for some time the recent horrors of our economy have caused global banks to want trade their Dollars for something more stable like the Euro. A currency backed by the three strong economies of The US, Canada and Mexico as well gold and silver reserves would stand strong even through future economic crisis'.
As established the US is at a near all time low and needs to be saved, this time, however, it is not going to be by a world war but rather a world economic revolution. Joint economies are the new ideal for a successful economy. Canada and The US CAN continue to produce high end goods. Mexico has the potential to be the worlds 7th largest economy with all of its -mostly untapped- natural resources. With The US and Canada working with Mexico we could create a real competitor in the global market; initiating the Amero and NAU would allow for the US to fix all of our past economic problems.
Canada would save upwards of $3 billion a year in currency transactions alone. Mexico would undergo a "Revolution of Hope." The United States would be able to pull itself out of its second greatest economic crisis to date.

Thank you.
crackofdawn

Con

Thank you for making this debate.

The IDEA of the Amero is good. I like the idea of it and think it should be put in place. The NAME Amero though is not okay.

1. Why would you use the word "Amero". Are we copying EU? They got "euro" from "european". We should follow suit then and make the "Ameri" or something else.

2. North America shouldn't copy other countries, we should be original.

3. There are plenty of cooler names out there than "Amero". There are also ones that would fit better.

Good luck PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
davidbo

Pro

First off the resolution is arguing the IDEA of the Amero, my opponent agrees with me that "The Amero is a good idea."

But if he really wants to know the reasoning behind the name here we go:

The name is something that has to be internationally recognizable. The Amero is its own identity with a common theme for the new world. Amero sounds like it has the same idea as the Euro, but that's because it does. The name also has to work with the languages it is used in. Amero is easily pronounced by Hispanic and Caucasian peoples.

As for us being original, we tried that when we eliminated the gold standard. Didn't work. We don't need to be original, we need a functional currency system.

And finally we aren't looking for the 'coolest' name out there, as a nation we should be looking for one that works, is simple, recognizable and, above all else, has a realistic and concrete ideal behind.

The Amero is a good idea. It will benefit the world economy, strengthen the NA infrastructure and allow for a stable value of currency. A joint economy is what our world needs from North America.

Thank you.
crackofdawn

Con

Thank you for you're response.

<>

This could be taken as "The IDEA of the Amero is a good idea"
OR
"The NAME of Amero is a good idea."

I took it as the latter.

<>

I get the "Amer" part but where does the "o" come from? Are you saying we're trying to copy the Euro with the Amero? Please specify.

<>

You can't compare Nixon making our ECONOMY unique to North America trying to make its CURRENCY NAME unique.

<>

That's all well and good except for the fact you can find a name that is cool AND fits your categories. Amero is a cool name, BUT it's copying Europe, and everybody knows imitations aren't cool. Why don't we make it something like the "Northo" then? What about the "Nero"?

<>

We're debating the name, not the idea.

> Many European people (coming from newspapers, family, friends, and myself) don't seem to like Americans. They're rude to us and try and make fun of us (check "A bold, fresh piece of humanity"). Think of the torment we Americans will have to go through as every time we go to Europe they'll laugh in our faces at the fact that we had to copied them. That the "almighty U.S." had to copy Europe. Don't make it the Amero... for the children's sake.

> The word "Amero" is misleading. This word makes the average person think of the "Americas". The NAU only includes North America so this is unfair to both North Americans and South Americans. North Americans don't want to be included with people they aren't involved with, and vice versa.

> If this name goes through we'll have to live with it, I'd rather get the name right the first time.

> Down with copiers, up with originality.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
davidbo

Pro

davidbo forfeited this round.
crackofdawn

Con

All arguments extend through round 3. I hope my opponent logs on again to debate in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3
davidbo

Pro

I was waiting for my opponent to actually argue the resolution, sadly, this has not happened.

I would love to debate against my opponent if he would actually debate the topic, however, he thinks it the job of the con to rewrite the resolution and then argue against it. QUOTE: This could be taken as "The IDEA of the Amero is a good idea" OR "The NAME of Amero is a good idea." Verbatim. The word NAME never showed up in the original resolution, the one my opponent chose to argue against (The Amero is a good idea) the original resolution can be put the way it is, or the way it is, Debate 101, red herring.

Onto the actual topic now.

In my first post I mentioned a rebuilding of the infrastructure in Mexico, what this is, is a super highway that is planned to be built from Mexican ports through Texas and up to the Midwest and the highway would then branch out to major US and Canadian cities, the pinnacle of trade and transportation. The Mexican part of this build would phenomenal, allowing Mexico to tap it's massive storage of natural resources, due to the increase in business and functionality, which would strengthen the NAU economy substantially, a worthwhile investment.

The gold and silver backing of a currency is irrefutable. America has tried both, backed and unbacked, and since the loss of gold in Fort Knox, the USD has been condemned to the crisis we are now in.

At a time where stocks are continually dropping, lay offs are commonplace and the USD is last seasons currency we, the North American people, need functionality. Heck, worst case scenario we change the name and keep the idea.

Thank you.
crackofdawn

Con

I thank my opponent for responding in the final round.

<>

I have argued the resolution, and I believe you're lying about waiting for me to argue the resolution. You weren't even on in the last week until you posted this argument. You just missed Round 3.

<>

The title states "The Amero is good idea". The word "Amero" could be taken as the subject of the sentence or the word "idea" could be. I chose "Amero" as the subject. As in using the word "Amero" is a good idea. I simply interpreted your title differenlty then you did. If you put "The Amero idea is a good idea" or "The idea of the Amero is a good idea". They both are debating the concept of making the Amero while your title "The Amero is good idea" could be taken as to debate as to whether or not having the name of "Amero" is a good idea.

<>

The actual topic is the name "Amero".

<< Heck, worst case scenario we change the name and keep the idea.>>

Everything else after you're first paragraph and this sentence are null to what is actually being discussed. You concede that we "could" change the name. I'm fine with keeping the idea but by not defending the name you have lost this debate.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent has not refuted my points and has thereby conceded them. By doing this he has lost the debate.

Thank you and VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by davidbo 8 years ago
davidbo
Nah, I won't vote if you don't. And I wasn't oblivious to your argument, I just never bothered logging for the exact reason in my case. But it was fun.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The idea of a unified currency is a wretched one, and tying it to a gold standard is especially wretched. Basically, using a gold standard ties inflation and deflation to mining and mineral recovery technology. If someone finds a way to, say, extract the gold from sea water then we would get worldwide inflation. When Spain imported lots of newly-discovered gold from the New World, it produced unprecedented inflation. On the other hand, if economies prosper faster than mining technology can keep up with money supply, we would get worldwide deflation. Currently, a major factor in the world price for gold is the demand for wedding dowries in India. Despite the current recession, the gold price has not soared, because demand in India is down -- due to the recession.

Pro gave no references to expert opinion, which is almost universally against the idea. Pro gave no reasons why the nearly-universal arguments against the idea could be overcome. Con did nothing but quibble over the name, spiking the topic.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
Davidbo, would you mind not voting on this debate. I can't stop you but I don't vote on my own debates and was just asking you for the courtesy of doing the same.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
I'm in total agreement with her. I am totally against using "Amero" though. Sorry if I ruined it for you but this is serious. If we go through with this I don't want to have the word "Amero" as the name of my currency.
Posted by shawnburton 8 years ago
shawnburton
crackofdawn ruins a good topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
davidbocrackofdawnTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm . . . I am not giving Con conduct due to his derailment of the argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
davidbocrackofdawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
davidbocrackofdawnTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00