The duodecimal system should be used in society rather than decimal.

Thank you for welcoming me to the debate, and for the complements on my previous statements. I'll cut straight to the chase however. Argument 1: My opponent poses the question, in regards to base twelve functioning without unique digits, "How on earth would base twelve function if this weren't true?" The problem here, as I mention in my previous argument, is that duodecimal/hexadecimal use temporary monikers: "A" (Decimal "10") and "B" (Decimal "11") to represent what Unicode 281A/B [1] are intended for. As I stated in the original argument, "With non-decimals in their current seldom-used form, the letter replacements work simply because we don't see them often enough to make them a problem." While I still stand by that argument, I will say, in my opening sentence, I may have overestimated how few people knew about non-decimal form, thinking it a "secret" between computer gurus and math nerds mostly. I will thus redact "Contrary to popular belief," on account that I don't have an actual source to back myself up in that regard, just a logic path apparently false. However, I do want to comment on the current shape of 281A/B - in my opinion, they look close enough to "2" and "3" to be easily confused for one another, especially in handwriting. This opinion also holds true in comparing them to "5" and "E". Whether this can be considered a true "argument", I will leave up to discretion. Argument 2: In answering your questions - I encounter mostly fourths and fifths in my day-to-day. However, the true answer to this is circumstantial and therefore potentially irrelevant to the conversation at hand. In financial calculations, however, given current values of American currency coins: .01 (penny), .05 (nickel), .10 (dime), .25 (quarter), .50 (half-dollar) and 1.00 (silver dollar/dollar bill), it stands to reason that fifths are again fairly common at .20, .40, .60, and .80. How true this really becomes in the actual mix, again, varies rather significantly depending on what coins are used in what proportions. However, in any proportion, halves, fourths, and fifths are all common, with rare chances at rough thirds (.33, .66). Decimal is the only "simple" system that caters to all three of these to the second decimal place, which is commonly used as the end-point of monetary values (of course, hundreds, and anything ending in a "0" would technically fill the requirements, but they aren't truly "simple", as there are multiple stages to breaking these forms back into prime, while "10" immediately breaks into "5" and "2", both of which are prime). I also would like to point to the concept of "places" or the numeric value each proceeding number would have in a complex integer, in which decimal has ones, tens, hundreds, so on and so forth in exponents of ten, while duodecimal would have ones, twelfths, hundred-fourty-fourths, so on and so forth in exponents of twelve. Ten is an easier number to multiply exponentially than twelve, as such is easier to do by hand. This also seems to be a good spot to insert an argument I had not considered upon building my original set of statements, that being SI, or metric, units. These are based off the concept of moving up and down measurement accuracy by moving a decimal up or down the number. With numbers having different place-values, measurements in metric would have to be reworked somewhat to correspond - for example, there would have to be twelve decimeter marks on each meterstick rather than ten. Therefore, each individual decimeter would have a slightly different physical value (distance the measure actually covers, in this case) from decimal. This would require a slight hump in learning metric, but nothing drastic. Argument 3: While I noted this as the "big kicker", this could very readily be determined to actually be my shakiest argument. The first segment we covered above - that being the actual economics. I still stand that duodecimal would have a hard time establishing in currencies, especially through the "slow ascension" method my opponent describes. In fact, through this method, some miracle of timing would have to occur to even give it a chance, as a single country applying this would be scorned on the global scale - made a laughing stock of, and duodecimal would recede into obscurity once more. At least two would be simultaneously necessary to get duodecimal's "foot in the door", so to speak. Argument 4: I touched on the counter here up in Argument 2, which, admittedly, my response to is rather long. I think I have covered the argument well enough up there. As a final note, I want to cover the "sexagesimal" system mentioned in the comments, in regards to clocks. Sure, taking "min." and "sec." as individual places themselves breeds base-60, however, it feeds into either base-12 or base-24 depending on the clock. From there, base-7, base-4, and base-12 before resetting. Clocks don't have a "metric base". Thanks again. [1] http://www.unicode.org...