The Instigator
oheesak
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,245 times Debate No: 19919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

oheesak

Pro

Today, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated.

In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that "the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History." The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, "the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system." He also claimed that the statement that the "'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them.

The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, "two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article "Penny Pinchers" for The Globe, "the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year." not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be "important to our pricing system." Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them.

As William Saffire comically remarked, " the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle"

The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy.

On the flip side, "Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59." (William Saffire)

*shakes head*
wierdman

Con







I thank my opponent for the most intriguing topic.

In today's society, a penny has become more than a simple coin used to commemorate the great president Abraham Lincoln, it is now a coin of both sentimental value and economic value. This debate will open your eyes to the new and exciting world of the penny...




Sentimental Value:
When looking into the issue of sentimental value, we find that it is one of major concern to the American citizen. The best way to understand the value of the cent towards the American population, is to look at the penny or rather cent's history.




BACKGROUND:
"When the United States Mint was created in 1792, one of the first coins it made the following year was the one-cent coin, and it looked very different from the modern version.� The image on the first cent was of a lady with flowing hair, who symbolized liberty.� The coin was larger and made of pure copper, while today's smaller cent is made of copper and zinc.
In 1857, Congress authorized the United States Mint to strike the cent with 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel.� The "shape and size" would be determined by the United States Mint Director, with the approval of the Treasury Secretary.� The new cents showed a flying eagle on the front and a wreath on the back.� The act of February 21, 1857, also mandated that people could no longer use coins from other countries, a practice that had been necessary because of a lack of domestic coinage.� However, people could bring their foreign coins to the United States Mint, where they could be exchanged for U.S. silver coins and the new cents.
From 1909 to 1958, the Lincoln obverse was paired with a reverse that featured a wheat design in which two sheaves of wheat flanked the words�ONE CENT�and�UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.� It is commonly known as the "wheat penny."
From 1959 to 2008, the reverse featured an image of the Lincoln Memorial designed by Frank Gasparro.� It commemorated the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth.
In 2009, the United States Mint issued four different one-cent coins in recognition of the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the first issuance of the Lincoln cent.� The themes for the reverse designs represent the four major aspects of President Lincoln's life:
birth and early childhood in Kentucky (1809-1816)
formative years in Indiana (1816-1830)
professional Life in Illinois (1830-1861)
presidency in Washington, DC (1861-1865)" {1}


With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value.

On to statistics:
Results of the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), show that:

* 69% of Americans favor keeping the penny in circulation, which is virtually identical to what Americans reported (71%) to ORC in 2001;
* 64% of respondents oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system; and
* 70% expressed concern that if the government implements rounding schemes for cash purchases, merchants might take the opportunity to raise prices rather than lose pennies when rounding down, with minority Americans expressing most concern. {2}


A personal survey interviewing 50 of my school mates showed these results:
38--->Wanted to keep the penny
10---> Didn't care
2-----> Wanted the penny gone.

We must also take in consideration that many charities use the penny to collect huge amount of donation. Take the JC PENNY Penny drive, the penny to many is far easier to donate than coins with a higher face value. Abolishing the penny will greatly affect these charity organizations as the are now unable to collect as much money as they previously did with the existence of the penny. "Some charities use penny drives to raise money. Children in New York City collected more than 65 million pennies last year for a total of $655,508.54, according to organizer Common Cents.
"It is a very powerful symbol of the potential we have to turn our wasteful society into a caring and recycling and reciprocal society," Common Cents founder Teddy Gross says." {3}
Both the statistic and the survey above shows that the penny is worth a lot when it comes to the American population. The American citizen not only see the sentimental worth of a penny, they also recognizes its.................

Economic worth.
My opponent makes a valuable point in stating that the penny is worth far more than its face value, however we must also take in consideration that the penny is also a major part of the economic circle. If the penny was abolished, every American goods as well as imported goods will have to be rinses to the nearest nickel. This might not seen like a lot, but to the lower class which makes up approximately 15.5% of the American population. "And at least one economist says eliminating the penny would hurt the poor. When prices are rounded, most of the amounts will be rounded up, not down, argues Pennsylvania State University economics professor Ray Lombra, who has testified before Congress in support of the penny. For those who have little money, those pennies will add up.
"Certainly the working poor — many of them still do not have checking accounts, credit cards — they are conducting their transactions in cash. So they are the ones who are going to bear most of the burden," Lombra says." {3}
We must also look into the fact that the nickel cost far more than the current penny. The nickel cost $7.55 approximately $2.55 over its face value. If the penny was to be eliminated, there would be an increase in the manufacturing of nickels which in turn would cost the united states more money than both the current penny and nickel production today.

Following my opponents core reason to abolish the penny, we should also abolish the nickel as it cost more to produce than it is actually worth.

SOURCES:
{1}http://www.usmint.gov...
{2}http://www.pennies.org...
{3}http://www.pennies.org...
{4}http://ohmygov.com...


Debate Round No. 1
oheesak

Pro

I thank "weirdman" for accepting my debate and for providing room for a rich, sophisticated debate.

The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that "With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value." On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect.)

The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug.

"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful." Greg Mankiw, Economist

I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it.

Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel.

Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. "Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing." Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding.

My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0.X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0.X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it.


I thank commentor "Janus" for bringing up a relevant question.

No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out.

Sources used in the previous and current post:
(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011
<http://www.redeemingriches.com...;
(2)Lewis, Mark. "Ban the Penny." Forbes.com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006
<http://www.forbes.com...;
(3)Kahn, Ric. "Penny Pinchers." Globe.com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006
<http://www.boston.com...;
(4)Saffire, William. "Abolish the Penny." nytimes.com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006
<http://select.nytimes.com...;
(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www.pennies.org>
(6)"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006
<http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;
(7)"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law." Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006
<http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;
wierdman

Con





I thank my opponent for the quick response and for the passion he proves to have for this topic.


"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value."

Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag.


"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies"

If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the "ULTIMATE" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, "$10,000 for maintenance(annually)"{2}
a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation.{3}
The past renovation cost us approximately "$15 million dollars" {2}

With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny.

. "Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug."
This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value.

"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it."

My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to...Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated.

"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel."
This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents).

"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel."

If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim}

"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. "Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing." Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding."
If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general.

"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0.X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0.X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it."

A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability.

Sources:
{1}http://www.debate.org...
{2}http://www.lighthousefriends.com...
{3}http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
{4}http://www.nytimes.com...



Debate Round No. 2
oheesak

Pro

I thank my opponent for also responding quickly and for taking the time to analyze my argument.


"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag."

I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further.

"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny."

"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to...Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated."

Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, "If it is of no benefit... not facilitating exchange." Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a "symbolic of nationhood and identity,"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to "function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy."[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory.

"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the "ULTIMATE" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance."

Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good.

"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents)."

>"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase"

My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make "giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase." However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up.

"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny."

Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries.) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about.

Evidence for the JC PENNY claim:
>($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result.

My opponent misunderstood my claim that "$7.02 as $6.98" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal.

My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary?


Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum.


I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas.



Sources:
[1] http://www.tpk.govt.nz...
[2] http://moneyrelease.com...
wierdman

Con

Thank you for the quick response.
Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, "If it is of no benefit... not facilitating exchange." {1}

To my opponent, I did incorporate the parts where you stated "If it is of no benefit... not facilitating exchange."{1} To Voters as well as my opponent, the biggest flaw made by my opponent within this statement is the use of the word "facilitate". Facilitate means to "Make (an action or process) easy or easier."{2} With this said, we can clearly see that the penny under my opponents term and use of the word facilitate, achieves its purpose as it allows for us to access every cent of a dollar, which then makes the exchange of goods easier to occur and thus should remain.

"eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a "symbolic of nationhood and identity,"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to "function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. ....My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered."{1}

How is this comparison invalid? Yes, I admit the fact that the American Flag achieves its purpose in terms of patriotic symbol of nationhood and identity, but like stated earlier, the penny also achieves its purpose of facilitating the exchange process as well as achieving its sentimental purpose. In conclusion, eliminating the penny, is equivalent to eliminating the American Flag.

"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good."{1}

My opponent misunderstand's the reason for making this comparison. In his second rebuttal, my opponent stated that "Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies."{1} This comparison was made to attack my opponents argument that since the penny is disproportional to our economic goals, then it should be eliminated. This comparison is simple trying to convey to both my opponent and the public, that just like the statue of liberty that does not comply to our economic goal, we should not eliminate the penny, as it achieves its purpose in both facilitating the economy and sentimental value and commemoration of the past president.

"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make "giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase." However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up."

This statement completely contradicts my opponents stand within this debate. My opponent through out this debate constantly stated that the penny is worthless and thus would be easier to neglect and many places do not accept the penny, now he is saying that people will hesitate to donate a penny.
In terms of penny drive and its Success using the nickel, my opponent although asked in my previous argument to show his evidence fails to do so. So his claim that the nickel would be as easily giving up should be seen as simple opinion without evidence.

"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries.) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about."

My opponent has no justification to say that these much people will be willing to donate there nickel so in the same term, how is he to say that over 18,000 people will be able to donate a penny compared to the 100 people who donate the nickel. The point is that since I provided evidence showing that pennies are more likely donated than nickels, my scenario clearly overturns my opponent's scenario.

">($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result."

This makes absolutely no sense. I asked for evidence not personal calculation. As for the 84.5% middle and upper class, who is to say that they wouldn't give the charities pennies because they asked for pennies. The 15.5 lower class evidence was not to show how many people donates, but to show the percent of people who would be greatly affected by the elimination of the penny.

"My opponent misunderstood my claim that "$7.02 as $6.98" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out...The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal."

Following my opponents new calculation, this completely goes against his idea that a coin is in existence to facilitate the economy. If the penny already makes it easier to complete an exchange, then why eliminate it? Also my opponents scenario is highly unlikely as producers are more likely to round up rather than down. so the $7.02 item would be rounded to $7.05 and since the $6.98 item is round up to $7.00, then the overall consumer is now loosing $1,200 following the 3000 costumer scenario. This means that the elimination of the coin will defeat my opponents main purpose of eliminating the penny, as exchange is now harder for the consumer.

Voters:
I win because I showed how the penny facilitates the process of exchange.
I win because I showed that the penny has other value other than its face value.
I win in argument as I defended as well as attacked my opponents arhuments
My opponent drops some of my arguments such the argument that eliminating the penny hurts the poor, and the argument that eliminating the penny means an increase production of the nickel which cost more to produce than the penny.
SOURCES IN COMMENT. (ran out of character space)
Thank you!
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NobleSavage 3 years ago
NobleSavage
I know this is old but I just wanted to through this out there: Everyone seems to be against the idea of rounding currency, as if they are going to lose something of value. What needs to be realized is that the price you pay at the store is already rounded to the nearest 100th of a dollar.
example: if an item costs 99 cents and you add 7% sales tax, the price is exactly $1.0494 which is then rounded up to the nearest penny to $1.05. Why is no one upset that we don't have a coin for 10000th of a dollar? Shouldn't we help the poor out with a triple-small penny and exact value?
Posted by Trance 5 years ago
Trance
I am for the elimination of pennies, as it actually costs the Government more to Mint them, than they are worth. Name could be said of nickels.

Dimes more or less break even, but they too should be eliminated as well.

The only coins that should continue to be minted (although maybe not in the numbers they currently are) are the quarters.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Oh, and I didnt even bother to weigh the patriotism argument in my decision. So what if the penny gives us "pride"? I can guarantee that 40 years ago hating blacks was considered a piece of "southern pride"
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
It's good to see such a good debate coming from a new member. I voted Con based off the underclass argument. Pro shows us that the prices would likely be rounded down as much as up, but that argument seems illogical, there is simply no reason to believe that merchants wont take advantage of such a chance to increase prices. Pro wins on the cost of manufacturing argument (although it is SO easily refuted! Just change the metal composition!) but he never weighed it. How much economic damage does this do, what could it be used for, and why should I care? None of these are adequately answered, so I cant vote based off of it. Its not that I find the argument about the poor particularly compelling, its just that weirdman argued an impact with it. The charity argument seemed to me to not support either side towards the end.

I gave S & G to Pro because of Cons horrendous color/font in the earlier rounds. No conduct violations were there, but I give conduct to Pro because of Cons "ultra quoting". It simply is not a good way to debate, and I think it'll be in his best interest in the long run if I penalzie him now to discourage it.
Posted by oheesak 5 years ago
oheesak
@Nicharesuk yes actually. The inspiration for this debate was from that test so most of my sources were based around that. Interesting that you noticed. Did you use it for a paper? ;]
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
how sad, the colors were for organization.
Posted by Nicharesuk 5 years ago
Nicharesuk
Did you get your info from an English AP test Oheesak?
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
@janus you do realize that that happens all the time? For change like $1.2234 we also round.

I agree with oheesak, the penny is actually very useless. No one uses it, and when the change is $1.01 for example, people just let the store keep the change. No one wants to carry pennies around.
Posted by oheesak 5 years ago
oheesak
All I can ask of the voters is that they read the entire debate before voting. The flaws in weirdman's arguments and ideas are apparent and speak for themselves. Thank you.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tyler90az 5 years ago
tyler90az
oheesakwierdmanTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Weirdman had more convincing arguments and they were better structured.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
oheesakwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
oheesakwierdmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros strongest argument was that the penny costs the US $15 billion to keep in circulation. Con tries to refute this by making a bizarre comparison to the American flag and the Statue of Liberty, which Pro convincingly refutes by showing that the penny has a very different purpose. Cons argument that the penny serves as a facilitator of exchange is irrelevant as Pro clearly showed how transactions would simply be rounded, so pennies would be unnecessary in exchange.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
oheesakwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Patriotic colors on Con's part. Con showed how the removal of the penny would do more harm than good, and Pro failed to respond well.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
oheesakwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments even, the colors hurt my eyes conduct pro. Grammar does too. Everything else even.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
oheesakwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Very patriotic colours on Con's part. I thought Con adequately rebuked Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
oheesakwierdmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misunderstood Pro's arguements.