The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation

I agree with Pro regarding the problems with the Federal Reserve, but I disagree with Pro solution. Here's a roadmap of what I'll do today: First, I'll critique the issues with the status quo. Second, I'll critique the plan put forward by the Proposition, and finally, I'll briefly introduce a few of my arguments. But first let us examine our common agreement regarding the status quo.: The Federal Reserve is a partially privately owned bank, and it does, as BirdieMachine points out, have the ability to "print money from thin air and charge interest on that money to the Federal Government. " Moreover, and perhaps of equal concern, the Fed's private owners are the very same banks that it is supposed to regulate. Making this conflict of interest even worse, the little power that the President does have over the Fed (the power to appoint members of the Board of Governors and the Chairman, is often misused to appoint former employees of Goldman Sachs and Citi Bank, for instance. While we're on the subjects of banks, it's important for us to keep in mind that banks other than the Central Bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve) lend money into existence (by loaning out as much as 10 times more money than they have in deposits) through a practice known as Fractional Reserve Banking. I point this out because one crucial point in this debate is that the Federal Reserve is not the only actor in the tawdry system of debt based money. Simply eliminating the Federal Reserve will not put an end to the usury that puts individuals, businesses, and the government into far more debt than it needs to be. Therefore I have developed a counter plan: Nationalize the Federal Reserve, put it under the control of the Treasury, and ban fractional reserve banking. This has been proposed before. From 1933 to 1935 it was proposed several times by economists at the University of Chicago, hence it's name: the Chicago Plan. It has even been proposed as legislation, most recently, I believe in the National Employment Defense Act (H.R. 2990). https://www.congress.gov.... This is not a partisan idea. People as conservative as Milton Friedman and as liberal as Dennis Kucinich have backed this proposal. I have one addition to the traditional Chicago Plan -- my counter plan would also ban the appointment of any Ex-employees of private banks to the Chairmanship of the Fed and to any position on the Board of Governors. Furthermore, one issue my opponent raised was Congressional Accountability. Once the Federal Reserve is part of the Treasury Department, Congressional supervision of the Treasury Department will extend to the Federal Reserve. Before I go further in enumerating the advantages of my counter plan, I think that it is important to examine the flaws in the Proposition's proposal. The first issue with the proposal put forth by the Proposition is that it is either very vague or very simple. The clearest statement of the plan can be found in the title of this debate,"The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation". The key words here are dissolved out of existence, and they are undefined. How will they be dissolved? Over what timeline? And here is the crux of the issue: What will replace the Federal Reserve? We are not informed about this. Are we going to simply go back to the Gold Standard, as is often advocated by Libertarian monetary reform advocates? We don't know. Is there any plan at all for what we do after abolishing the Federal Reserve, or is that the silver (W.J. Bryan! I hope some of you got the in joke) bullet solution that'll solve all of our monetary problems. The second problem with this plan is that it says nothing about raising reserve requirements from 10% to 100%. (Ending Fractional Reserve Banking). I don't think that it would be fair for my opponent to amend the plan and include a ban of fractional reserve banking, because my opponent said nothing about it in the first round, and I accepted the challenge to this debate believing (based on my opponent's words) that the only component to this plan is "Ending the Fed". There wasn't even a hint in the first round that any of our monetary problems or solutions have anything to do with private banks like Goldman Sachs or Citibank.And that is what I prepared to debate. The Opposition has less ground to debate whenever the Proposition arbitrarily decides to add something to it's plan, esp. when the item added to the Proposition's plan was originally proposed in the Counter Plan (which was put forward, let us remember, by the Opposition). That not only makes debate unfair for the opposition, it also makes the debate less educational. The point of debate is to educate people on both sides of any given issue, as well as those people who are on the fence. Thus, adding a ban of fractional reserve banking defeats the very purpose of debate. Such an amendment to the Proposition's plan would warrant a vote for Con on the grounds of fairness, education, and value. Even supposing that my opponent does suddenly decide to abolish all fractional reserve banking, who would enforce the new, stringent reserve requirements? The Federal Reserve has experience enforcing Reserve Requirements, lousy 10% requirements, granted, but that is because of how it is currently structured. Once we pass legislation requiring 100% reserve requirements, the Federal Reserve, under the Treasury Department's supervision, and indeed, under the supervision of Congress, will enforce the new reserve requirements. There may be more to come regarding flaws in my opponent's plan in the Second Round, once my opponent has had the chance to answer these questions, and once we have a clearer picture of the plan. And now, here are a few contentions which argue for the counter plan: Contention 1: My counter plan would put the Government, in direct control of the nation's money supply. This is warranted by the fact that the Federal Reserve would be nationalized and part of the Treasury Department, and that this will enable greater Congressional supervision of the Fed. This has 2 main impacts. i: This would mean the democratization of money. Ordinary people will have more power and sovereignty over money than they currently have. ii: This would enable us to have debt free money creation, and would reduce the levels of personal, business, and governmental debt at all levels of government. Contention 2: My counter plan would help promote a stable money supply, and by extension, a stable economy. This is for two reasons: The first is that when the Government issues debt free money while it bans fractional reserve banking, the inflationary effects of the debt free money will be canceled out by the deflationary effects of banning fractional reserve banking. This is why the two policies go hand in hand. Contention 3: By ending the private ownership of the Federal Reserve, by the banks that regulate it, and by banning the appointment of former bankers to key positions within the Fed, we will enable the Fed to regulate Wall Street more thoroughly than it has in the past. This will also promote economic stability for obvious reasons that can be elaborated in round to if necessary.. Moreover, my opponent's plan simply ends the Fed. It does not create any new agency that will be given the Federal Reserves regulatory powers, thus Pro's plan will deregulate Wall Street and increase the instability of the economy. If Pro suddenly decides to create a new agency with the Federal Reserve's regulatory powers, that would be unfair for the same reasons enumerated regarding a ban on fractional reserve banking, and it would warrant a vote for con for those very reasons. I would like to thank BirdieMachine for making this debate possible. I'll be leaving the country on July 10th and I don't know if I'll be able to respond to arguments after that day.Pleaserespondearlythx