The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.

Thank you for the quick response. Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, "If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. " {1} To my opponent, I did incorporate the parts where you stated "If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. "{1} To Voters as well as my opponent, the biggest flaw made by my opponent within this statement is the use of the word "facilitate". Facilitate means to "Make (an action or process) easy or easier. "{2} With this said, we can clearly see that the penny under my opponents term and use of the word facilitate, achieves its purpose as it allows for us to access every cent of a dollar, which then makes the exchange of goods easier to occur and thus should remain. "eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a "symbolic of nationhood and identity,"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to "function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. . .. .My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. "{1} How is this comparison invalid? Yes, I admit the fact that the American Flag achieves its purpose in terms of patriotic symbol of nationhood and identity, but like stated earlier, the penny also achieves its purpose of facilitating the exchange process as well as achieving its sentimental purpose. In conclusion, eliminating the penny, is equivalent to eliminating the American Flag. "Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. "{1} My opponent misunderstand's the reason for making this comparison. In his second rebuttal, my opponent stated that "Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. "{1} This comparison was made to attack my opponents argument that since the penny is disproportional to our economic goals, then it should be eliminated. This comparison is simple trying to convey to both my opponent and the public, that just like the statue of liberty that does not comply to our economic goal, we should not eliminate the penny, as it achieves its purpose in both facilitating the economy and sentimental value and commemoration of the past president. "My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make "giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. " However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. " This statement completely contradicts my opponents stand within this debate. My opponent through out this debate constantly stated that the penny is worthless and thus would be easier to neglect and many places do not accept the penny, now he is saying that people will hesitate to donate a penny. In terms of penny drive and its Success using the nickel, my opponent although asked in my previous argument to show his evidence fails to do so. So his claim that the nickel would be as easily giving up should be seen as simple opinion without evidence. "Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. " My opponent has no justification to say that these much people will be willing to donate there nickel so in the same term, how is he to say that over 18,000 people will be able to donate a penny compared to the 100 people who donate the nickel. The point is that since I provided evidence showing that pennies are more likely donated than nickels, my scenario clearly overturns my opponent's scenario. ">($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. " This makes absolutely no sense. I asked for evidence not personal calculation. As for the 84.5% middle and upper class, who is to say that they wouldn't give the charities pennies because they asked for pennies. The 15.5 lower class evidence was not to show how many people donates, but to show the percent of people who would be greatly affected by the elimination of the penny. "My opponent misunderstood my claim that "$7.02 as $6.98" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. .. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. " Following my opponents new calculation, this completely goes against his idea that a coin is in existence to facilitate the economy. If the penny already makes it easier to complete an exchange, then why eliminate it? Also my opponents scenario is highly unlikely as producers are more likely to round up rather than down. so the $7.02 item would be rounded to $7.05 and since the $6.98 item is round up to $7.00, then the overall consumer is now loosing $1,200 following the 3000 costumer scenario. This means that the elimination of the coin will defeat my opponents main purpose of eliminating the penny, as exchange is now harder for the consumer. Voters: I win because I showed how the penny facilitates the process of exchange. I win because I showed that the penny has other value other than its face value. I win in argument as I defended as well as attacked my opponents arhuments My opponent drops some of my arguments such the argument that eliminating the penny hurts the poor, and the argument that eliminating the penny means an increase production of the nickel which cost more to produce than the penny. SOURCES IN COMMENT. (ran out of character space) Thank you!