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

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]