The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)

Ok, I am balancing many things right now, so this won't be as high a quality as I would like due to time and spread of mental power issues, but here it goes. Also, before I start, I am A) sorry for the gender mix-up; won happen again :). If my jesting comments concerning the biasness of the Pro's source seemed to be insulting, I am sorry. The internet is terrible at conveying emotions and the comments were not meant to be harsh. CP- I am kicking it. I did not state it was unconditional nor did my opponent hold me to that burden. The only offensive arguments Con could get off the counter-plan would be in a "abuse is a voter" sort of package, which my opponent did not do, ergo the kick is not abusive. However, I will respond to the abuse arguments anyway. "This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to "picking a random metal" is just a cop-out." As I stated, I believed the general counterplan would be better for the affirmative, thus I did not specify, just as a CX team does not specify who would propose their plan in Congress to pass it. However, the fact is, which my opponent conceded, THE COMMENTS SECTION CHECKS ABUSE. Just as in real life debate where cross-examination time checks clarification abuses, my opponent had 3 DAYS before her first round was posted to ask me to specify my counterplan, which I would have gladly done. At the point where she does not ask this, it is her fault and not mine, thus negating any possible offense one might give my opponent even though the CP is kicked. Note: Kicking the counterplan is not a reason to vote Pro. I am simply cleaning up the debate a bit and highlighting the important issues, rather than go for a counterplan that for the Pro is at best a wash. _________ Pro Case: _________ 1A Consumer Confidence: 1. If there is not burden for the Minister to say something along the lines of "definitely", then the fact that he did not is not a reason to discredit the card. Note that no evidence has been brought up to actually counter the card 2. Ok, just because KFC getting rid of mashed potatoes and the Double Down would harm sales like getting rid of green beans would does not mean that the harms of getting rid of green beans disappear. The offense still stands; it merely applies to other coins as well as pennies 3. Yes, the quotation itself does not fully track the bad effects to their eventual ends. That's why there is my analysis in round 1 that shows that the lowering of consumer confidence would be detrimental to the economy, analysis that was dropped in Round 2 and thus cannot be brought up in Round 3 by the Pro. 1B Cheaper than other transactions. I don't ignore the analysis made by the Pro. Rather I show how the "cost" would be insignificant if the calculations were true, in that the next cheapest form of payment would cost 4X as much, and also questions the validity of the calculations itself, which if were true, would cause so much harm that our economy would be in shambles. The offense in this contention is based on the source in this round that has been questioned and once I show that the source is not valid, the offense here falls. NACS 1. Yes, a website in support of eliminating the penny states that the NACS and Walgreens state statistics that support their side. As I stated, that is a HUGE ground for bias. I'm not calling any one a liar, please don't get that vibe, but not only have I searched the Walgreens and NACS sites myself for such statistics, but I have asked my opponent to provide the cites as well. At the point where I have called out my opponent's evidence and she has refused to provide the cite for it, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT AS VALID. Therefore, ALL of my opponent's offense in her case, with the exception of the China contention, which I will get to, falls as it is based on this source and supposed waste of time. 2. Again, I am not calling anyone a liar, but at the point where you refuse to provide the cites to the supposed statements, the source cannot be accepted as valid. Also, what does physics have to do with economics? Contention 2 CP is dropped does not matter Brightline: Again, I don't know if it is a misunderstanding, but my opponent does not give an adequate answer. My opponent states the problem of debt, BUT NEVER SAYS HOW PASSING THE RESOLUTION FIXES THE PROBLEM. If we need to save 50 dollars and the plan saves 40, the problem can't be used as a reason to pass the plan as the problem is not solved. Conversely, if the plan saves 60 dollars, the impact is valid. My opponent fails to show how voting affirmative would solve the problem thus the contention must be ignored. Human Rights 1. China is in a much greater entrenchment of communism than the examples, thus it makes sense, it would not be an immediate affect, but a slower one. My opponent doesn't attack the link, but says its not acting fast enough, which is not really an attack 2. First, as the CATO article shows, by trading with them we are ENDING the abuses. Thus, the ethical issues are treated, though not in the way my opponent apparently wants to go. Secondly, crossapply the article from the first round. The US has its own human rights abuses and China has rightly called us out on them. We need to fix these before we take any comprehensive action on China. Neg Case Con.1 Extend the 600 million a year rounding tax; this goes dropped through out the round. Con. 2 1. First, this contention deals with LONG TERM IMPACTS. So, this does not apply, in fact this does not apply to any of my offense so it can just be ignored 2. Um, my opponent never said that inflation was a wash, and if she did, I would like her to explain the Great Depression or Zimbabwae. Extend the extreme inflation that the government would go under due to passing the aff's plan 3. The inflation on one item would not be small. However, as I have stated, the OVERALL impact would be huge Con 3. The point of the tax IS this raise; that is what the "tax" is comprised of. The fact is, there are a disproportionate items labled .5 and up as compared to lower, thus more items are going to be higher than lower, creating the tax. Extend the harm that stores lose 30% of their profit by the passing of the aff's plan 2 and 3 Extend that the 2-2.5 source is not valid Theft 1. Ok, so then the rise and fall of electronic purchases is a wash, STILL leading to my harms of theft. 2. As I stated in round 1, the danger is dealing with whether the employee has to use the cash register. If an item was $3.00 exactly, it is rather easy for the consumer to simply pull out three ones. At that point, the employee can simply bid them a good day and pocket the money, as there is no proof of the transaction as the register remains closed. This is MUCH less likely if the cost is say 3.47. As all the Neg offense still stands in this round and all of the Pro's offense that was not based on a source that has not been shown to be valid does not have a bright-line and thus no proof of solvency, I must urge a vote in negation.