The Instigator
wolfman4711
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The Penny

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Ameliamk1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,577 times Debate No: 34590
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

wolfman4711

Con

This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue. You may start or accept on first round you choose.
Ameliamk1

Pro

I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
wolfman4711

Con

The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies...

Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year.

Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore.

Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line.

Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first. I wish my opponent good luck and thank him for accepting the debate.
Ameliamk1

Pro

First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you.

The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent.

Refutations:

1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1)

2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something.

3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with.

Arguments against:

1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one.

2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2)

3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous.

I will begin with this. Good luck, con!

(1) http://www.factmonster.com...
(2) http://www.pennies.org...
(3) http://www.businessinsider.com...
Debate Round No. 2
wolfman4711

Con

Arguments

1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion.

2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power.

3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them.

Rebuttal

1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage.

2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all.

3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time.

If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)
Ameliamk1

Pro

Rebuttal:

1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency.

2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section.

3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now.

Other Rebuttal:

1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing.

2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage.

3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.
Debate Round No. 3
wolfman4711

Con

1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny.

2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement.

3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it.

1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year.

2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income.

3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument.

Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars.

Sources:
1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm
2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html
3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com

I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win
Ameliamk1

Pro

Rebuttal:

1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument.

2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not.

3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument.

Other Rebuttal :D:

1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy.

2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway.

3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency.

Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel.

Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by J.Nieman 1 year ago
J.Nieman
This Debate is over but I have one argue to refute Ameliamk1's first argument of the penny being cost effective due to remaining in the system, and its this.

The Penny has little to no use then 9/10 times it just ends up sitting on a shelf somewhere in a jar, and NOT in the System, which therefore its not worth anything its no longer in the system and so the U.S has to mint more to keep the penny flowing, so really it just wastes materials and money.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
I didn't use cgpgreys video....
Posted by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
It's not too close, although it's pretty clear he used it. Didn't site it, either.
Posted by acrotun24521 3 years ago
acrotun24521
cons round 2 paragraph 1 was nearly perfectly copy-pasted from cgpgrey's penny video on youtube.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
wolfman4711Ameliamk1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a better argument mainly the charity argument changed my mind as well as continued use throughout the years.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
wolfman4711Ameliamk1Tied
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: Does anyone actually use pennies? Con put forth good economic reasons against the penny.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
wolfman4711Ameliamk1Tied
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: A lot of Pro's arguments didn't make sense. Repeatedly using a penny does not mean the penny is multiplying. Con showed how the penny's usefulness is not worth the cost and overall use of having the penny. Rounding would work, they do it on US bases overseas and if there was no penny then people would give nickles and dimes to charity instead. Overall, Pro's arguments were weak and fallible.
Vote Placed by Overkill 3 years ago
Overkill
wolfman4711Ameliamk1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides of this debate had equal conduct and both were very reliable. Even so, I still stick to my original opinion of the redundancy of pence and their irritating existence. They are timely and costly in bulk and have no place in an economy where they no longer have any respectable worth. I have made it clear of my bias, and apologize for it.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
wolfman4711Ameliamk1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's break this down! Conduct: Tied! Both parties were civil. S&G: Pro! Con used atrocious spelling and oft made grammar mistakes. Pro was at least at an average level. Arguments: Pro! Con struggled to understand some of the logic, very good I might add, in some of Pro's contentions. Pro knocked Con's contentions down fairly well. Sources: Pro! Reason being that Pro used more reliable sources and sources that were easier to access. Nice job, Pro.