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

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 LossThe 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 dollarsdollar coins: 0.3 * 6.5 billion = $1.95 billion dollars difference in cost: 1.95 billion - 614.4 million = $1.3356 billionTherefore, 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 capitalSwitching 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.