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

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 DECIDED2. 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.