Manhattan is a very important place in the US. It has lots of people and buildings.

The value of
Manhattan is $1.74 trillion. If Manhattan's value is the GDP, it would rank 10th, behind Italy and
Brazil but ahead of Canada, Russia, and South Korea. When the Dutch arrived, however, the
natives sold Manhattan out for $24. Our data is also very important and is of great monetary
value. How much do we sell for it? Not even $24; for free. And going cashless isn't going to
help. Hello, my name is Peter, the first speaker of the CON team. Today we are debating
whether we should convert to a cashless society or not. We the CON team believe that cash
shouldn't be abolished. I will refute Pro's first two arguments and present our first two
arguments that cashless societies help cybercriminals, and it will hurt local commerce.

I will refute their first two arguments.

They asserted

However

And this is because

Therefore, their argument is wrong.

I will refute their first two arguments.

They asserted

However

And this is because

Therefore, their argument is wrong.

Now I will present my first argument that cashless societies help cybercriminals. Cashless
societies are dependent on digital payments or using bank accounts for credit and debit cards.
When there are cash and non-cash payments, the criminals have an extent to breach and take
money. However, if everything is converted into non-cash, breaching is easier and more deadly.
One example is Belgian diamond storage. It is over 100 years of history and has never had a
successful robbery in its history. Despite this, all it took to steal money was a fake transaction
call. Cash criminals generally do more risky things. We know how many robberies took place
because they were caught. Cybercriminals are silent. Many companies, government agencies,
and individuals are not secured enough for this threat. People and companies will not only lose
some money but all of their wealth. This will have enormous consequences. Billions of dollars,
vaporized. Thousands of people going bankrupt in a whim of a click. Duah-Khetti(Ancient Egypt)
said to his son that peasants lose their wealth in a whim of a pen by the officials. We are the
peasants, criminals are the officials, and cashless payment methods are the pen.

Our second argument is that it will hurt local commerce. Many people assume cashless
societies will help the government, people, and companies. That is true(since the governments
don't use money in printing money), but that is only the one side of the coin. Local stores
mostly rely on cash-based exchange. This is because local commerce does not have the capital
to give credit card fees. In South Korea, that is only somewhat true, but other countries aren't.
World spending is 70% on cash. Do you think a store in rural Afganistan or an arctic store in
Russia will accept Samsung Pay? Of course, they don't. If the world abolishes cash, local stores
have two choices. One, they could switch to credit/debit payments, which will hurt their profits,
or two, illegally use cash until the FBI discovers it and puts them in jail. Cashless systems will
eliminate small-scale stores, which makes an imbalance between small companies and large,
GAFA-sized companies. Nations try to prevent this through many efforts and lending them
money with a lower interest rate. Abolishing cash will eliminate this effort. 50 years later, we
will no longer see the traditional stores, the small stores built of trust. Instead, we will see
massive stores, able to monopolize. This will hurt the world economy.

Change isn't bad. The world always needs change, for it is the main drive of humanity.
However, artificial change is risky. The global trend is shifting to a cashless society(albeit
gradually), so why interfere with it and make problems? As time passes, the local commerce
will adapt to this situation, and individuals, companies, and government agencies will gradually
strengthen their security. Let it be gradual, not artificially. Thank you.