The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

if america switched to a 1$ coin we would save money

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,277 times Debate No: 20119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

first round acceptance only. I argue for coins. SOrry for the lack of specification You argue that bills save money, I argue that if we switch to coins we save money. Deal? You provide definitions, must be valid ones (like dictionary or something like that) but If you wish I will do it next round.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I accept.

As this resolution is a "would" case, and Pro did not provide any specifications, I will.

As the US and Canada are very similar in culture, the new 1$ American coin would be made the exact same way as the loonie in Canada. The same metal percentages, size, weight, just different inscriptions.

The "we" in this case is the government of America.

By "save money" it is meant that within the first month of introducing the new $1 coin, less money would be used up than staying with the $1 bill.

For example, say it costed $100 to make all the loonies and switch to the $1 coin in the first month. Say we stayed with the $1 bill, and we spent $120 manufacturing new bills in the first month. Then we would have saved $20 switching to the $1 coin.

The Burden of Proof for Pro is to prove without any doubt that within the first month of switching to the $1 coin in America, America would lower costs than staying with the $1 bill.

As Con, my burden of proof is to prove without a doubt that switching to the $1 coin would cost much more within the first month than staying with the $1 bill.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Thanks for accepting. MY case refutes your arguments.

News sources:

The Government Accountability Office, which issued a report on the cost-savings of a currency switch earlier this year, said that because coins outlast paper currency (which survive about 42 months), the switch would save about $5.6 billion over 30 years. [1]

So at first it may spike spending but over a period of time it saves money.

There actually is a good reason why the Mint is trying to get us to use dollar coins instead of bills. The Government Accountability Office says Uncle Sam could save $522 million a year in production expenses if we did. That's because the coins last 30 years, while the bills don't even last 30 months. [2]

The main reason to make the switch is that it will save money. Paper dollars wear out in about three years and then are typically shredded and put in landfills. Coins cost more to make, but they last 30 years or more, and they're recyclable when they become too worn to circulate. The government also makes money on the difference between what money costs to make and what it's worth. [3]

Over time, all this adds up. The Government Accountability Office estimates that switching to dollar coins would incur costs at first, but save the government $5.5 billion over 30 years. The study is thorough and credible, despite attempts to knock it down. This is the fourth time the non-partisan GAO has worked through the analysis and concluded that the government would gain from a switch. [3]

Other sources:

The move to a coin would cost money in the short term, but eventually save money because paper currency lasts about 42 months -- while coins theoretically last forever. Moving to a coin could save $5.6 billion over 30 years, according to the Government Accountability Office. [4]

some of my sources have other arguments but we are focused on cost. So you cannot use those.

The current $1 coin program actually reduces the federal deficit by nearly $300 million each year. [5]

The news release cited the U.S. Mint's 2010 Annual Report, which states the $1 coin program made a net profit of $283 million, all of which was transferred to the Treasury General Fund to reduce government debt. [5]

So it gave us profit

According to a report released in March by the GAO, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year by the continued use of the dollar note. The report, Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the Government, found that transitioning fully to a dollar coin would save the government an average of $184 million per year and approximately $5.5 billion over a 30-year period. Using more traditional assumptions in the GAO analysis, savings could be as high as $11.1 billion. [5]

So different numbers but same trend.

According to the Dollar Coin Alliance, without a dollar coin program, and given losses of more than $40 million for cents and 5-cent coins, the Mint would be in danger of operating the circulating coin program at a net loss. [5]

So according to this since we haven't enacted this plan we are losing money.

According to the Dollar Coin Alliance, this response is consistent with findings from the GAO's own polling in 2002 and an ABCNews.com online survey in October 2011 that found that 76 percent of respondents favored eliminating the note given the savings opportunity. [5]

SO most Americans are for the bill. SO don't say Americans won't use it and then there is no benefit.

We are in 15 trillion dollars in debt any savings helps.

15 trillion dollars im debt [6]

The reason for the indifference? The federal government never bothered to discontinue the use of a paper dollar. The government has about $1 billion worth of unused dollar coins sitting in a vault, the Government Accountability Office claims. The GAO also claims if America finally phased out a paper dollar in favor of a coin, it would save the federal budget $5.6 billion over 30 years. [7]

this is getting annoying I have proved my point here.

I believe I have proved and fulfilled the BOP

http://abcnews.go.com... [1]
http://www.usatoday.com... [2]
http://www.usatoday.com... [3]
http://www.azcentral.com... [4]
http://www.coinworld.com... [5]
http://www.usdebtclock.org... [6]
http://hypervocal.com... [7]
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Viewers please note that all of Pro's arguments are invalid.

I have stated in the first round that "save money" it is meant that money would be saved within the first month. Pro keeps saying that money would be saved in the long term, which is true, but those are not the terms of the debate. As Pro did not provide specifications and definitions, I have, so Pro has no choice but to follow mine. Pro also did not contest my definitions.

Refutations:

Most of Pro's arguments are about how money would be saved in the long run. I have already mentioned that the terms of this debate is that money would be saved in the first month. As Pro did not prove why money would be saved in the short term (first month), he did not fulfill his burden of proof, nor comply to the terms of this debate. All of pro's arbuments are invalid.

Pro also goes on to say how coins would last longer than paper bills. However, coins are not our only option. In Canada, currently polymer bills are being manufactured, which are basically bills made out of plastic. These bills cost significantly less than coins to produce, as it is plastic, and they are durable and don't rip like the paper bills. The transition to polymer bills from paper bills in Canada costed $100 million, which is what it would cost to transition to coins as well.
http://www.thestar.com...

Polymer bills wowuld also save money in the long term, as they last longer than normal paper bills. It also benefits the environment, as plastic is recycled to make these bills. Furthermore, the $10, $20, $50, and other denominator bills can also be turned into polymer bills. This is a feature that coins are unable to have. You cannot have a $50 or $100 dollar coin, as it would be too easy lose. Therefore, polymer bills actually save more money than if America switched to the $1 coin.

All of Pro's arguments are along the lines of, "Coins last longer, so it would save us money. Yes, coins cost more in the beginning but in the long run, it would save money."

By that logic, polymer bills would be a more logical choice, as they also last long and save money. The logic behind Pro's arguments is that coins are the best choice because of money saved in the long term. However, I have proven that that logic is flawed, because coins are not the best choice, as more money can be saved with the polymer bills.

Therefore Pro's arguments are flawed.

Arguments:

1. Short Term Loss

The terms of this debate were that save money, meant less costs within the first month, which Pro did not contest to. Pro himself says, "The move to a coin would cost money in the short term".

Pro concedes that coins would cost more in the short term.

By that basis, Pro has already lost this debate, as it must be proven that money is saved within the first month, and Pro agrees that it would cost more in the short term.

We must also remember that switching to a different medium of exchange requires all of the old money (the bills) to be removed from the economy, but also producing the coins to replace it.

According to this site: http://www.ctv.ca... loonie costs 30 cents to produce.

Also, "Of all the notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the $1 note makes up about 45% of currency production."

http://www.moneyfactory.gov...

Also, 6.4 billion 1 dollar notes were produced last year, at 9.6 cents per note. http://money.cnn.com...

This means that over 6.4 billion 1 dollar coins must also be produced (because there are still some notes in circulation) to replace the dollar notes, to ensure stabilitiy in the economy. For simplicity, let's say 6.5 billion 1 dollar coins must be produced. Let's do some math.

dollar notes: 0.096 * 6.4 billion = $614.4 million dollars
dollar coins: 0.3 * 6.5 billion = $1.95 billion dollars
difference in cost: 1.95 billion - 614.4 million = $1.3356 billion

Therefore, as you can see, switching to the dollar coin would cost a bit over 1 billion dollars, which is must more than sticking with the dollar notes. Furthermore, as you can see from the first article I provided, switching to polymer notes would only cost 100 million.

As coins cost a lot more in the short term, and this debate is about which option would save more money in the short term, dollar notes would save more money.

2. Requires more capital

Switching to dollar coins requires much more money in the beginning than sticking with dollar notes. Pro has not addressed this vital point in the debate.

What if the government of America does not have this capital?

To switch to coins, the government of America must spend nearly 2 billion dollars within a few months in order to replace all the notes with coins. This means that the government must incur a heavy debt or use 2 billion dollars to produce these coins.

Sticking with the notes cost significantly less per year, over a longer term, than the coins. This means that you have a debt that is easier to handle and pay off. Furthermore, the money saved in the beginning can be put towards infrastructure, job creation, etc. Much better uses.

Let's put this in perspective.

Say you have a bunch of crayons. These represent the dollar notes. You want to upgrade these crayons to pencil crayons (representing the coins), which cost significantly more than crayons do.

Say it costs 60 cents for a pack of 12 crayons and $2 for a pack of 12 pencil crayons. Your income is $1 a year.

You need these crayons quickly in order to finish an art project.

You have two options. You can finish the art project now with the crayons you have, and buy new crayons (manufacture new dollar notes) at the end of the year for $1, and still have some money left over to invest elsewhere, like candies (education system, health care, infrastructure).

Or you can incur a heavy debt, that gathers compound interest per period, to buy the pencil crayons (coins) now. It would take you at least 2 years to pay off this debt, considering interest, to pay it off. And you don't get any candy.

The first option, of crayons/bills, is a much better option. Converting to coins is not a pressing issue, it is not a neccessity. Currently, the economy of the world is doing badly. Companies are going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs.

Converting to coins would require a large investment of capital. This is not a good idea in a time of economic crisis.

Maybe later, when the economy is doing better, would you then convert to coins. But there are more pressing issues to invest your 2 billion dollars of capital into.




Therefore, I have fulfilled my BOP and proved why in the short term, as the terms of the debate suggest, money is not saved.

Pro has not fulfilled his BOP, as he proves why in the long term money is saved, but the terms of the debate are that converting to coins would save money, within the month.

I have also proven an extra portion in this debate, why converting to coins at this time is difficult and not a good idea and why it is much more costly than sticking with the dollar bill.





As Pro did not fulfill his BOP, nor provide valid arguments, he has lost this debate. I have fulfilled my BOP and provided strong arguments against the resolution.

Therefore, I have won this debate.

Therefore, Vote CON.
Therefore, Vote HardCore.Pwnography.





Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

defense of my long term arguments:

I never said we had to debate the 1 month and you only had the power to provide definitions, not make rules. There was no rules on time in the title or in my arguments. So you do not have this power I have basically proved my point.

Also my opponents other options:
I said if America switched. Also how much would we save? Also that is against the parameters of the debate. You are to argue current US currency, paper bills, and I argue coins. So the transition cost is the same, how about the overall saving. Once again you argued against the title so I will not even care. The title is if america switched to 1$ cons we would save money, not we should switch to other bills. You had to argue con to the title.

Also his green argument.

Recycling uses 3 times more energy then to throw away and make new ones, also it is bad because it releases toxins into to the air. Source: Penn and teller BS recycling

His rebuttal to the coin last longer

once again you made a red herring. Stick to the coins won't save money as implied in the title.

Now rebuttals to my opponents arguments:

'The terms of this debate were that save money, meant less costs within the first month, which Pro did not contest to."

LOL In the long term it saves a lot of money within 2 months. And will out do the initial costs.

Switching from one-dollar bills to one-dollar coins could also have secondary effects that could produce additional budgetary savings. Those effects consist of reductions in the interest costs on the government's debt and are not scorable under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA). They would result only if the public was willing to hold a higher value of coins than notes; for example, if the public was willing to hold two one-dollar coins for each one-dollar note formerly held. [1]

The higher initial cost of the coin is more than offset, however, by its significantly longer useful life (30 years versus 1.5 years). In addition, the costs to the government of maintaining the quality and integrity of coins are lower than they are for notes, which must be inspected individually for fitness and counterfeits. [1]

So initially it costs more but over a period of time it pays for itself and gives a savings.

'By that basis, Pro has already lost this debate, as it must be proven that money is saved within the first month, and Pro agrees that it would cost more in the short term. "

1. THAT WAS NEVER DECIDED
2. as the contender i gave you powers of definitons, not rules.
3. stop with the red herring.

'loonie costs 30 cents to produce. "

THIS debate is about america. Also it does cost more to make a coin but it lasts longer, paying for itself according to my AMERICAN GOVERMENT source.

a dollar coin costs 8 cents to make [1]

'Also, "Of all the notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the $1 note makes up about 45% of currency production."

Thanks for helping my case, that means we could save a lot of money when it comes to MAKING money. He he that sounded funny.

"dollar notes: 0.096 * 6.4 billion = $614.4 million dollars
dollar coins: 0.3 * 6.5 billion = $1.95 billion dollars
difference in cost: 1.95 billion - 614.4 million = $1.3356 billion"

COINS LAST 30 YEARS
BILLS 1.5

difference 28.5 years. (coins win)

when a bill dies you have to make a new one, and since coins last longer you have to make less therefore saving money.

"Therefore, as you can see, switching to the dollar coin would cost a bit over 1 billion dollars, which is must more than sticking with the dollar notes."

you forgot long term savings. :)

"Switching to dollar coins requires much more money in the beginning than sticking with dollar notes. Pro has not addressed this vital point in the debate."

stop repeating I have proven it saves money over time with multiple sources.

I have done this and proved my point, no need to refute as my opponent just repeats. He will still claim the month thing but that is not in his power to decide as I made no official rules (instigator makes rules) and the only power I granted you was definitions. He is in a red herring.

dang i have to refute his economic argument :)

in the short term it it bad but in the long term it will HELP the economy. Also we are arguing cost not economics. another red herring.

I have fufilled the BOP there was no month restriction.

conlusion to the rebutals:

My opps. arguments are all red herrings. Also he decided to give himself the power of rule making, which he does not have, I deserve conduct for his remarks that he deserves rule pawers when he is the contender and the only thing granted to him was definitions. I also deserve conduct for the red herring. Also he used an example from canada.

My arguments.

I will prove my point again. Also when he turns around and says a dollar coin costs more according to this .org site remember, my goverment source would know more about that.

goverment math on the subject:

One way of expressing the savings is to compare the average yearly cost to the government of meeting the public's need for a dollar of coin or currency over the expected 30-year life of a coin. If the government meets that need by furnishing a note, it will have to produce 20 one-dollar notes over the 30-year period to replace continuously those that wear out hi order to keep a single one-dollar note in circulation. Thus, the average annual production cost for notes is about 2.5 cents (3.8 cents divided by 1.5 years) per dollar in circulation. By contrast, if the government meets the public's need for one-dollar currency through coins, the average annual production cost is only 0.27 cents (8 cents divided by 30 years) for each dollar in circulation. In addition, the more frequent and higher processing cost of notes adds to the cost of keeping a dollar note in circulation. Therefore, the government saves between 2 cents and 3 cents per year for each dollar coin that replaces a dollar note. That would add up to a savings of $120 million to $180 million a year if $6 billion in notes were replaced by an equal amount in coins. [1]

yep just read it again if you need clarification.

other sources:

He said that dollar coins have an average shelf life of 30 years and are recyclable; therefore, once they are in circulation, new ones will need to be produced less often. [2]

thats was from a congressman. That's why it is cheaper because you have to make them less often, saving money.

The initial cost of producing the coins would cause the government to lose money during the first four years of circulation, but the switch would save an estimated $5.5 billion over 30 years, according to the General Accountability Office. [2]

With that said, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said the country could save $5.5 billion over the next three decades if they eliminated the dollar bill, replacing it with the dollar coin, permanently. [3]

conclusion:

I do not have to prove it saves in a month as my opp. doesn't have the power to choose that as I am the one with the rule making power and his only power is to debate and define. That is his red herring. Also I have proven my case with credible sources and a govermental one. I also argued what the title defined and used american examples, not a canadian one. I have fufilled the BOP, refuted my opps. arguments, used viable sources, and avoided red herrings to the best of my ability. (I do not think I can say as much for my opp.) SO vote pro, as I have won.

sources:

http://www.cbo.gov... [1]
http://www.seminolenewspaper.com... [2]
http://www.newsherald.com... [3]
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Sorry for the slow-ish reply. Pro's grammar and formatting makes things hard to read.

Before we get into refutation and rebuilding, let's set some things straight.

Pro believes and he says, "[I] only had the power to provide definitions, not make rules".

Let's look at why I had the power to provide definitions. I had this power because Pro did not set any definitions in the beginning. Therefore, it was up to me to make definitions.

If you look closely, I did not make any rules in the first round.

All I did was provide definitions. I simply defined "save money" as using up less money in the first month. And as Pro says, I have this power.

Therefore, Pro has not proven anything this entire debate. All he has proven is that America would save money in the long term. He even admits it himself "So initially [coins] costs more."

Because of the definition of "save money" that I have provided, he has basically conceded the entire debate.

Now that we all understand that Pro has indeed lost this debate because of the definition I provided, which he said that I had the power to do, let's get into some rebuilding of my points.


============= Rebuilding and Refutation ================


Pro says that polymer bills is not a direct refutation to the resolution. I agree! It was never meant to be a main argument. It was merely a side argument to provide some additional knowledge about the topic. I was merely bored and I still had a lot of space to fill, so I decided to provide some foundation to the debate, provide some depth.

Pro is unable to deduce my main argument, even though I have named it specifically "Short term loss."

Pro says "LOL In the long term it saves a lot of money within 2 months. And will out do the initial costs."

Note his lack of professionality. Furthermore, once again, I provided the definition to "save money" and you must prove that it would save money within a month, not two. Also, with the math I provided, you can see that it would take at least three years to save money and out do the initial costs, not two.

Then, Pro goes on with some analysis that does not even prove his case. As I say time and time again, Pro must prove that coins would cost less within the first month, as that is the definition of save money, that I have provided.

In response to this, Pro says;

"1. THAT WAS NEVER DECIDED
2. as the contender i gave you powers of definitons, not rules.
3. stop with the red herring."

1. It was decided. Pro did say ""So initially [coins] costs more."
2. I did not provide rules, I simply defined "save money" as lower costs within the first month.
3. That is not a red herring, it is directly related to the topic.

Furthermore, once again, Pro attempts to attack my definitions that I have set in the first round. He says that the loonie is not American. But in the beginning, I said that the new one dollar coin would be made exactly like the loonie, as Canadians and Americans have a similar culture.

Furthermore, Pro provides an American Government source that he thinks is reliable. It would be reliable if it was published in 2011 or 2010. However, it was published in 1995. Prices naturally rise overtime, and 8 cents in 1995 is not 8 cents in 2011. Therefore the dollar does not cost 8 cents to make, but 30 cents to make, by my 2010 source:

http://www.ctv.ca...

Pro also naiively thinks that my statement of "Of all the notes printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the $1 note makes up about 45% of currency production." helps his case.

It would... if this is about the long term. In the short term, all it means is that more dollar bills must be recalled and switched for the coin, meaning more short term costs. Once again, the definition I provided is within the month. Therefore, coins winning because of a difference of 28.5 years in life is false, as what we are talking about is within a month. Therefore, both coins and bills have an equal life. Therefore, Pro's rebuttal is invalid.
Pro thinks I have also forgotton long term savings.

I feel like a broken record here, but I have defined save money, as short term, as within a month, therefore all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals are invalid.

============== Conclusion ===============

Therefore, in the end, I have won because Pro fails to fulfill his BOP. I defined, and he said I had this power, save money as within a month. Therefore, I have refuted this resolution and Pro has not proven it. Therefore I have won this debate.

============ Voter's Guide ================


Who had better conduct?

That would be CON. Pro continually attacks me personally and fails to accept the fact that he gave me power of definitions, therefore I set the definitions in the debate. If Pro did not like my definitions, he should have set them himself.

Note, Pro says "dang i have to refute his economic argument :)" which does not show good conduct.

Who had better spelling and grammar?

Again that would be CON. Several times, Pro does not capitalize the beginning word of his sentence, where I have had perfect spelling and grammar.

Who made more convincing arguments?

CON again. CON has more convincing arguments because CON refutes the refutation. PRO fails to prove the refutation, as the definition of save money, is lower costs within the month. CON directly refutes this, saying that it would cost more within the month. PRO fails this because he proves that in the long term, it would cost more, but that was not how the debate was defined. Note that PRO admits that he provided me power to provide definitions. Therefore, PRO does not refute any of CON's arguments, as PRO keeps saying that CON did not have the power to make rules, when all CON did was provide a definition to "save money".

Who used the most reliable sources?

I believe this section to be tied. Pro did provide more sources, however one source was an old source that he tried to pass off as reliable when it clearly was not.


Thank you. Please follow my voter's guide.

Vote CON.
Vote HardCore.Pwnography.











Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
? how did you get the buttons in your argument?
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
lol, conservativepolitco, how did pro show the resolution to be in his favor?
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Yes, save money needs to be defined. Are you saving money in a day, a month, a year, a decade, a century? It needs to be specified. I defined it as a month.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yeah save money isn't a month. Save money needn't be defined. Last time I do that.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Yes, but Pro gave me the power to make definitions, and that was how I defined "save money". That was the only reason why I accepted this debate, lol.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Those look like semantic/abusive definitions

No where does it imply that there is a time limit.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Wow I don't understand how Pro can win when the definitions I set said specifically within the first month and Pro did not prove that.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
OMG.... CON - how did you do that with the voting guide?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I understand economics btw I know what inflation is
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
true
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsHardcore.PwnographyTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro since he clearly showed the resolution to be in his favor. Conduct also to Pro becuase I found Con's use of "Voter Guide" to be distasteful.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had better conduct since con doesnt know how to lay off the bold, large font, and tried to derail the debate completely, grammar is tied because con had spelling errors (round 2, wowuld) but pro had his share too. Pro had more sources, and pro showed how coins outlast bills in lifespan and would thus save money...
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsHardcore.PwnographyTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. CON attempted to argue semantics and changed what was the assumed definitions of teh resolution. In my eyes, simply saying "they do not follow the definitions" is not a good rebuttal to arguments. Overall, long term outweighs short term. However CON was correct about the S/G.