Reply:

I am in favor of continuing to use the p-value for several reasons. First, because if we get rid of the p-value, it will make other things weird. In the article "Defending the p-value", it mentions that "common statistical problems and applications where banning the p-value is awkward and not sensible". It would be like having a leg amputated for medical reasons, and not trying to get a prosthetic to replace the missing leg to facilitate walking. Some of the individuals that want to ban the p-value are not even offering an alternative. Maybe if they were to offer something better that would not affect anything else, I may agree to it, but so far there are no alternatives of anything better. Also, even though some may not plan to ban the p-value entirely, they plan to ban the "threshold from 0.05 or 0.005 which might be sensible for new discoveries, but not a good idea as a blanket rule". Second, banning the p-value would affect test statistics. The article mentions that test statistics would be banned along with p-value, "and it doesn't make sense to talk about power and sample size without it". In conclusion my main reasoning for not retiring the p-value completely is because other statistical problems will be affected.