The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)

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] 1B 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. NACS 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. C2 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 C3 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. [1] http://www.pennies.org... [2] http://www.coinstar.com... [3] http://www.thegoodhuman.com... [4] http://www.metalprices.com... [5] http://www.nacsonline.com... [6] http://www.cato.org... [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk...