The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)

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  
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: 4/29/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,281 times Debate No: 11918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




I'd like to thank my opponent, Sportsguru, for providing such fit meat for debate, and Kleptin for organizing a tournament with such a unique premise.

This is a RD 1 debate for Kleptin's tournament, and I will be assuming the role of Sportsguru from the following debate: Feel free to peruse it prior to reading this one. Sportsguru will, in effect, be opposing himself (or at least arguments inspired by his own). Hence, if you see chunks of text directly quoted from the above-cited debate, I'm not plagiarizing. :)

I affirm, resolved: the penny should be immediately discontinued.

No definitions were provided within the referenced debate, and the topic was assumed to mean that the US should stop minting pennies as a form of currency. This resolution does not require me to do anything extreme, like pull all current pennies from circulation (hence the use of "discontinued"). We'll stick with that interpretation. Any others would be considered extra-topical, especially in light of the purpose of this tournament.

Onto case:

1. Pennies are a complete waste of critical resources.

a. For all its use within the American economy (i.e. next to none), the penny is produced at a cost to the U.S. Per the group Citizens for Retiring the Penny, the U.S. Dept. of Treasury produces approximately 7 billion pennies (worth $70 million) each year. The cost to make all those pennies was around $100 million. [1] As Sportsguru predicted a year ago, this cost is only rising. ABC World News reported in 2008 that the cost of minting pennies is right around $130 million. Each penny produced costs the U.S. 1.7 cents. En total, the U.S. loses around $50 million during the penny production process. [2] Talk about ill-advised spending.

In times like these, with a global recession, a U.S. economy in the throws of a depression, poor government spending, and the public quickly losing faith in the ability of its elected officials to properly money-manage, this gesture, though relatively small, would be a step in the right direction to much needed expenditure examination. It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U.S.

b. The transaction time in penny exchange costs the U.S. economy further. Though we don't often consider the time costs of a monetary exchange involving pennies (or change, for that matter), we should. Efficiency is a primary concern of a struggling economy, and any step toward improving efficiency while maintaining a just system should be taken. The National Association of Convenience Stores as well as the Walgreen's drug stores assert that transactions involving pennies waste approximately 2-2.5 seconds per cash transaction. That may seem like a pittance , but the resulting wasted time is exponentially terrible when considered on a national scale. I won't bore the readers with the calculus here, suffice to say that each American wastes around 2.5 hours every year on penny transactions. This would be mirrored in all consumer industries that take pennies within their transactions.

If we then calculate the opportunity cost per person in the U.S. (i.e. what that 2.5 hours means in dollars in terms of salary), each person in the U.S. "pays" the government around $30-$40 just to keep pennies in circulation. Granted, some of that can be factored into the original production cost of $150 million (through taxes), but considering that the opportunity cost adds up to closer to $10 billion per year for the nation, pennies cost much more to keep in circulation than their production value.

Though this $10 billion may seem like a tiny drop in the heaving, "perfect-storm-esque" sea that is the national debt, imagine the programs that can be funded on that money each year.

2. Increasing out dependence on China (and other foreign countries) is detrimental to both the domestic and foreign interests of the U.S.

As is well known, China currently possesses the highest concentration of utilized zinc resources in the world. [3] Furthermore, they are actively trying to corner the market on this particular resource. Just this year, Chinese zinc giant Metallurgical Corp of China is seeking to bid on Anglo-American Zinc, worth approximately $1 billion. [4] If this acquisition is completed (which it likely will be), China would successfully purchase a huge chunk of the American industrial market, which is crucial because the US currently has the second highest concentration of zinc resources in the world.

But, you might ask, why don't we just produce the zinc ourselves? Easy answer: we import because companies like Anglo-American can't undersell our foreign competitors. This is evident at the sale of Anglo-American. What's worse, it appears that Anglo-American will be controlled by a country other than the U.S. The other major bidders are all out of the country.

We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy. These expenditures further damage our political capital, as we appear weak and unable to control our domestic affairs. Furthermore, as is clearly illustrated by the U.S. political lobby system, indebtedness translates directly into policy compromises. Considering China's current state of affairs, do we really want to compromise influence that we might have over, say, their human rights abuses?

In conclusion, for the good of the nation and its citizens, I strongly urge a vote in favor of eliminating the penny.



Okay, man, it has been a while since I've done this. I thank Kleptin for organizing this tournament, and alto2osu for this debate challenge. Without further ado, let us begin (As a brief roadmap, I will go down my opponent's case before my own).

Interpretation- This is a reasonable interpretation, and the one I intended when I originally made the debate. Thus, I agree and there is no clash here.

1a. I cannot deny the cost of zinc in the world. However, alto2osu makes it seem like the discontinuation of pennies is the only action to take, with the net benefit of public confidence in the economy through reform. However, we can see that the elimination of the one-cent piece would actually LOWER consumer confidence, as the German Finance Ministry stated for the introduction of the one-cent euro piece [1, page 8]:

"If a euro one-cent coin were not introduced, public opinion might regard this as a sign of weakness in the euro and confidence in the stability of the common European currency might suffer as a result"

Also, this is not the only option to solve this problem. At the point where the cause of this cost is from the metal it is made from, primarily zinc, we can see that it is much more beneficial to accept the following counter-plan: "The United States should change the metal that pennies are made out of". Not only does this solve my opponents first point, but it has the net benefit of avoiding the harms of the negative case that is to come.

1b. Again, while the case my seem to be against the penny, the actual cost of a cash transaction comparatively is not the wasteful picture my opponent paints. When stores calculated the cost of each transaction (in time, armored courier costs, etc.), they found that cash transactions, including those with pennies, were the cheapest by FAR, whether it be per item, or in total transactions [1, page 6]

Also, I searched for this report by the NACS that you claimed, but I could not find it. I'm not saying you are lying, but could you please give the source?

2 First, cross-apply the counter-plan. If the penny is not made out of zinc, we don't have this "problem". Secondly, we must see that even if this sale happens, we do not become more "indebted" to China. This is simply one company selling itself off. Ok, we don't have the world's biggest deposits of zinc. Therefore it makes sense we are not the biggest producers; this is not apocalyptic , just common sense.

"We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy."

Can you prove this? Where is the bright-line between us being able to operate freely and not operate freely?

On human rights, we already have NO influence on China in the issue of human rights, nor do private businesses as shown with the recent tiff between China and Google. In fact, China shot back at the US calling the US hypocrites for criticizing China.[2]

Neg case (other than impact turns):

1 Direct Impact. If one were to get rid of the penny, obviously one would have to round prices to the nearest nickel. While seemingly insignificant, this causes a huge price to be paid. Due to the disproportionate amount of items ending with 9 and certain other numbers [1 page 3], a $600 million "round tax" as Lambra calls it, would be paid by each consumer yearly simply because of this rounding. If we are going to talk economic impacts, this forced extra spending that does not actually produce benefit is simply going to leave consumers with less disposable income, meaning less spending which means a slower recovery if not another recession.

2 Long-term-Inflation. Long term impacts do not look any better. The rounding that would occur would negatively affect governmental spending. Using data from the congressional budget office, Lambra calculates that government spending would be up by 2 billion JUST by this rounding. Note that this was is 2001, when the economy was actually good and our spending was not that high. With the higher spending we have today, the artificial rise would just be that much greater.

3 Stores- Finally, we can look to the affect on stores. After taking into account the fact that cash transaction is the cheapest transaction to make, we can see that this rounding would run stores out of buisness. At a 1998 convention, the NACS stated that the average profit per transaction is about 6-7 cents [1 page6] Thus, a two-three cent rounding would take about 30% of a store's profit basically kicking someone while they are down. Also we can look to the threat deterrence of pennies. Without pennies, exact change is more likely to be had. At that point, the register does not have to be opened to procure change and the employee can just pocket the money. With pennies, this is MUCH less likely to happen.

For all these reasons, I urge a vote in negation.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :)

Pro Case:

Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence

1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce.

2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro "might" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios.

Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan

1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources.

2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material.

3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace "China" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague.

Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper

1. Cheaper than what?

2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions.

Pro Contention 1B: NACS "Report"

1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place.
2. Never claimed it was a report.
3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL "F" Walgreen.

Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan

1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material.

Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency

1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't.

Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights

1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China.

Neg Case:

Neg Contention1:

1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said "paid by each consumer," as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money.

Neg Contention 2:

1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash.

2. The author of his source admits that "the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small." Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy.

Neg Contention 3:

1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it?

2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss.

3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro.

4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together—just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms.



No need to apologize, I have many things to juggle as well. First, I will go down the Pro, then the Con

1A Consumer Confidence

1. From Pro case- "It is a piece of the reform so desperately needed to encourage the economic health of the U.S."

I interpreted this as "We have reform-boost consumer confidence and thus encourages growth". Regardless, the Neg Ground from Germany Card still stands, as I will show.

2. Yes, when talking about future events, especially future economic events one usually does not use a "definitely will" or something to that affect; the future is just too unpredictable (see random giant drop in stocks just yesterday that no one can figure out what caused.) If the German Finance minister was not sure of his proposal, it would have never been brought up. Unless you can give evidence to the contrary, the German evidence wins.

Which brings me to the 2nd part of this rebuttal. First, just as there may be a group to get rid of the penny, there are also groups to KEEP the penny. [1] In fact, 2/3 of Americans want to keep the penny.[2] So, statistics only point toward a con vote on this point.

1A Counter-plan
1. No, the counter-plan solves for your harm. The higher cost is caused by the raised price of zinc. At the point where the metal that pennies are made out of is changed, your harm disappears.

2. I will cover how your supposed cost A has no proof of existence, and B even still is nothing compared what would be spent if your plan passes

3. I figured it would be easier and less abusive for the aff to just debate replacement, rather than me find a random metal and PIC out of the Aff. However, if my opponent wishes, I choose aluminum

A. We have ample supply. In fact, 1500 aluminum cans are thrown away per second just by the US [3]
B. Its cheaper than zinc and copper, cutting off the Aff's harms[4]

1. Cheaper than all other forms of transaction. Meaning if a cash transaction with or without pennies goes from .07 to 10 Billion dollar cost, then debit card would bring in a cost of over 40 billion (over 4 times as costly as cash) assuming your cost analysis is your correct. Basically, your first contention is nothing compared to potential costs even if it is correct

2. I will address the "cost" a bit later and the whole point is that even if it is correct, its non-unique.

1. Yes and the search results for penny on the sight bring up nothing like your claim[5]

2. Even if it is not an official report, if you are correct, it must make an assertion similar to yours SOMEWHERE on the site. However, I fail to see where the assertion is

3. WHAT! OMG!? A society that wants pennies gone says source x agrees with them but doesn't provide a link? How completely reliable and having no chance of bias! The only thing more convincing would be if Marlboro claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!! All jesting aside, I'm calling a proverbial BS on the cost unless you can provide a link from the NACS on this. Until this is done, this argument cannot be accepted on any grounds.

2 CP
Cross apply I thought not specific would be better for the aff and I had clarified. Also, if he claims it is abusive to clarify in the 2nd round, he had ample time to ask me to clarify in the comments section BEFORE he posted his round, thus abuse is checked

2 Bright-line
I'm sorry, perhaps there was a misinterpretation, or I just was not clear (unfortunately probably the latter). What I meant was: How much debt do we have to lose to "act freely" and can you prove that the aff plan would put us on the other side of the bright line and thus allow us to act freely?

2 Human rights
1. Cross Apply Google; they have NO trade or debt obligations and yet there is still conflict between them and China over the great Firewall that is helping China commit abuses

2. Interdependency and free trade with China is key to ending human rights abuses [6]

Neg Case
C 1
1. Again, cross-apply no proof of cost and the fact that transactions without pennies would COST MORE MONEY thus negating my opponent's contention 1.


1. This is in page 4 of my 1st source in round 1. Using the rounding tax accrued, prices would be raised, on average 1/100 of a percent Lombra then just uses analysis from the Congressional Budget Office about a rise in one percent and cross-applies it. It should be noted that the affect would actually be higher, since the study was done in a time of economic prosperity, rather than the shaky times now. Also, extend that this tax would leave consumers with less disposable income and thus lower spending, turning us back from whence we just came out of.

2. Yes, on ONE item the affect would be small. However, over the whole economy the affect is huge, which Lombra goes on to say after the part of the quote you cut out. And again, that's my point. The affect would be LARGER because of the recession we have had and are still recovering from


1. Not if you consider the 600 million rounding tax that would have to be paid per year because of it small

2. Again CA all other arguments vs this contention, plus its 2 SECONDS according to your opening case, not cents.

3. Cross-Apply arguments agianst Contention 1 here as this is all he is using to negate this contention

4. Whenever we go completely electronic, this argument will be valid. However, right now, all my opponent has done is said "yeah that's true, but it does not matter" However, with these economic times, the amount of cash transactions are RISING as people try to control their spending[7] Thus the harm is there and is growing.


Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for the great debate, Con! :)

Pro Case
Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence
1. I wasn't placing a "definitely will" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins.

1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination.
2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses.

On Abuse:
1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to "picking a random metal" is just a cop-out.
2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now).
3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3]

Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper
1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do.
2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum.

1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, "Walgreens." It's there. I promise.
2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation.

Pro Contention 2

Cross-Application of Counterplan:
1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan.
2. I'm a she.
3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it—he should state it up front.


My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted.

Human Rights:

1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, "Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan." South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act.
2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions.
Neg Case
Neg Contention 1:
All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1.

Neg Contention 2:

On #1:
1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response.
2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself.

On #2
1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his "$2 billion in spending by 2010" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items…?

Neg Contention 3:

On #1:
The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest "5" or "0" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95).

On #2:
Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD.

On #3:
My sources are perfectly adequate.

On #4 (Theft):
1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position.
2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45.



Ok, I am balancing many things right now, so this won't be as high a quality as I would like due to time and spread of mental power issues, but here it goes. Also, before I start, I am A) sorry for the gender mix-up; won happen again :). If my jesting comments concerning the biasness of the Pro's source seemed to be insulting, I am sorry. The internet is terrible at conveying emotions and the comments were not meant to be harsh.

CP- I am kicking it. I did not state it was unconditional nor did my opponent hold me to that burden. The only offensive arguments Con could get off the counter-plan would be in a "abuse is a voter" sort of package, which my opponent did not do, ergo the kick is not abusive. However, I will respond to the abuse arguments anyway.

"This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to "picking a random metal" is just a cop-out."

As I stated, I believed the general counterplan would be better for the affirmative, thus I did not specify, just as a CX team does not specify who would propose their plan in Congress to pass it. However, the fact is, which my opponent conceded, THE COMMENTS SECTION CHECKS ABUSE. Just as in real life debate where cross-examination time checks clarification abuses, my opponent had 3 DAYS before her first round was posted to ask me to specify my counterplan, which I would have gladly done. At the point where she does not ask this, it is her fault and not mine, thus negating any possible offense one might give my opponent even though the CP is kicked.

Note: Kicking the counterplan is not a reason to vote Pro. I am simply cleaning up the debate a bit and highlighting the important issues, rather than go for a counterplan that for the Pro is at best a wash.

Pro Case:

1A Consumer Confidence:

1. If there is not burden for the Minister to say something along the lines of "definitely", then the fact that he did not is not a reason to discredit the card. Note that no evidence has been brought up to actually counter the card
2. Ok, just because KFC getting rid of mashed potatoes and the Double Down would harm sales like getting rid of green beans would does not mean that the harms of getting rid of green beans disappear. The offense still stands; it merely applies to other coins as well as pennies
3. Yes, the quotation itself does not fully track the bad effects to their eventual ends. That's why there is my analysis in round 1 that shows that the lowering of consumer confidence would be detrimental to the economy, analysis that was dropped in Round 2 and thus cannot be brought up in Round 3 by the Pro.

1B Cheaper than other transactions.
I don't ignore the analysis made by the Pro. Rather I show how the "cost" would be insignificant if the calculations were true, in that the next cheapest form of payment would cost 4X as much, and also questions the validity of the calculations itself, which if were true, would cause so much harm that our economy would be in shambles. The offense in this contention is based on the source in this round that has been questioned and once I show that the source is not valid, the offense here falls.

1. Yes, a website in support of eliminating the penny states that the NACS and Walgreens state statistics that support their side. As I stated, that is a HUGE ground for bias. I'm not calling any one a liar, please don't get that vibe, but not only have I searched the Walgreens and NACS sites myself for such statistics, but I have asked my opponent to provide the cites as well. At the point where I have called out my opponent's evidence and she has refused to provide the cite for it, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT AS VALID. Therefore, ALL of my opponent's offense in her case, with the exception of the China contention, which I will get to, falls as it is based on this source and supposed waste of time.

2. Again, I am not calling anyone a liar, but at the point where you refuse to provide the cites to the supposed statements, the source cannot be accepted as valid. Also, what does physics have to do with economics?

Contention 2

CP is dropped does not matter


Again, I don't know if it is a misunderstanding, but my opponent does not give an adequate answer. My opponent states the problem of debt, BUT NEVER SAYS HOW PASSING THE RESOLUTION FIXES THE PROBLEM. If we need to save 50 dollars and the plan saves 40, the problem can't be used as a reason to pass the plan as the problem is not solved. Conversely, if the plan saves 60 dollars, the impact is valid.

My opponent fails to show how voting affirmative would solve the problem thus the contention must be ignored.

Human Rights

1. China is in a much greater entrenchment of communism than the examples, thus it makes sense, it would not be an immediate affect, but a slower one. My opponent doesn't attack the link, but says its not acting fast enough, which is not really an attack

2. First, as the CATO article shows, by trading with them we are ENDING the abuses. Thus, the ethical issues are treated, though not in the way my opponent apparently wants to go. Secondly, crossapply the article from the first round. The US has its own human rights abuses and China has rightly called us out on them. We need to fix these before we take any comprehensive action on China.

Neg Case

Con.1 Extend the 600 million a year rounding tax; this goes dropped through out the round.

Con. 2
1. First, this contention deals with LONG TERM IMPACTS. So, this does not apply, in fact this does not apply to any of my offense so it can just be ignored
2. Um, my opponent never said that inflation was a wash, and if she did, I would like her to explain the Great Depression or Zimbabwae. Extend the extreme inflation that the government would go under due to passing the aff's plan
3. The inflation on one item would not be small. However, as I have stated, the OVERALL impact would be huge

Con 3.
The point of the tax IS this raise; that is what the "tax" is comprised of. The fact is, there are a disproportionate items labled .5 and up as compared to lower, thus more items are going to be higher than lower, creating the tax. Extend the harm that stores lose 30% of their profit by the passing of the aff's plan

2 and 3
Extend that the 2-2.5 source is not valid

1. Ok, so then the rise and fall of electronic purchases is a wash, STILL leading to my harms of theft.

2. As I stated in round 1, the danger is dealing with whether the employee has to use the cash register. If an item was $3.00 exactly, it is rather easy for the consumer to simply pull out three ones. At that point, the employee can simply bid them a good day and pocket the money, as there is no proof of the transaction as the register remains closed. This is MUCH less likely if the cost is say 3.47.

As all the Neg offense still stands in this round and all of the Pro's offense that was not based on a source that has not been shown to be valid does not have a bright-line and thus no proof of solvency, I must urge a vote in negation.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by lucyreed 4 years ago
The penny is perhaps the most debatable coin in circulation, as it costs more than one cent to make one and no person likes the things. A sports store is so federal reserve up with them that the store owner has declared [url=]cents banned[/url] from the property.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
This is an excellent debate that deserves more attention. Certainly I am not the only person who has wondered about the relevance of the penny. Right? Anybody?
Posted by SportsGuru 7 years ago
I suppose...I mean not only is it on the front page, but I posted it in the thread concerning Kleptin's tourney. I guess people just don't care about the penny on this site.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
Wow...I guess we are in a low traffic area? :P
Posted by SportsGuru 7 years ago
Very good debate; Eh, as ironic as it is that I'm on a debate, I try to be non-confrontational, thus I try to cover my bases to not offend anyone. As far as whom votes, I think its the tourney participants, but I don't know for sure
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
Fun debate :) I'm not absolutely sure who is actually *supposed* to vote on it, but I guess it's just tourney participants? Btw-- not actually offended by the whole gender thing. It happens all the time.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't consider the foreign affairs arguments too compelling, but raw production costs and transaction time were interesting. In both cases, Pro's case was more persuasive and well sourced.
Vote Placed by ignorantlibral 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23