Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

You, the judge, have to properly weigh the arguments laid out in this round and determine who has the convincing arguments of this round. Let us look at some key issues where you should be voting for the affirmation. I will start by addressing the contentions as laid out by both sides before addressing the rebuttals laid out throughout this debate. Allow me to review the contentions laid out by my opponent; that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson "redefined" democracy, that Jackson strongly supported the common man, that Jackson reduced the national debt, that Jackson empowered the executive branch and that Jackson was a war hero. Notice several flaws in my opponent's contentions. The first is that my opponent, throughout this debate, does not quote a single source throughout his posts. Not one. We have no idea how Jackson supported the common man nor how Jackson "redefined" democracy. He has no backing for any of his arguments. It is impossible to look to my opponent's contentions as they are unsubstantiated, without proof. Second, you will notice that five out of six of my opponent's contentions are ones based around opinion; for instance, it is of the opinion of the negation that Jackson was a pioneer, that Jackson redefined democracy and that Jackson was a war hero. On the contrary, the affirmation has provided hard facts that Jackson's actions led to the Trail of Tears and, in turn, three thousand deaths, and the support of slavery and continued suffering of Africans. You cannot weigh what is mainly opinion over hard fact; the affirmation has the more convincing arguments. The sixth contention that my opponent has, that Jackson solved the national debt, is one I will address in a separate topic. Third, the affirmation's two contentions outweigh all six of the negation's contentions. Note what the affirmation's contentions deal with; hard facts about Jackson causing death and destruction. The negation's contentions deal with opinionated topics, about Jackson fighting the British in the War of 1812 and Jackson having a rag-to-riches story. These contentions, just based on the topic of the contentions alone, do not outweigh the affirmation's contentions. If the judge feels that neither side made a more convincing case, the judge must flow to the affirmation because the affirmation has more prominent contentions than the negation. Zooming further into the topics of the contentions, let us look at the rebuttals laid out by either side in this debate. Note the main topics in this debate, dealing with Jackson and Indian removal and slavery as well as Jackson's role in the economy. Looking at economy, the affirmation wins. The negation mentions that Jackson solved the national debt. The affirmation agreed with this. However, it is noteworthy that Jackson's actions of solving the national debt eventually led to the collapsing of the US economy and the longest depression in this nation's history. Note that I provide a source on this, while my opponent provides none. Yet, the negation states that the evidence is not sufficient! He further claims that the actions prevented the South from seceding! Yet the negation provides not a single source. The negation also seems to think that solving the national debt has more weight than crashing the United States economy. Is this really true? What should the judge weigh in this round? A claim backed by a source and logical evidence, or a claim with no evidence that ignores the first claim repeatedly? Economy flows to the affirmation. Looking at lives/impact on Indian removal and slavery, the affirmation wins. Again, the negation leaves no sources or backing for any rebuttals and claims he makes, while the affirmation provided several sources showing that Jackson supported slavery and Indian removal and thus should be removed. This aside, looking at the negation's refutations, none are sufficient. Looking specifically at my opponent's refutations as he states them in his last round post, especially dealing with the Trail of Tears, a, b and c are irrelevant as previously established in this debate (a ignores hard fact, b is based on a claim that the affirmation has not made, and c ignores the hard facts and offers an excuse for the suffering of millions) and d and e are not supported by any backing or evidence. In conclusion, the judge should be flowing to the affirmation for the following reasons; a. ) None of the negation's contentions and arguments are supported by evidence, fact or reasoning, b. ) The majority of the negation's contentions are based on opinion, not hard fact, c. ) The major argumentative issues in this round (economy and lives/slavery/Trail of Tears) were better argued by the affirmation, d. ) The negation's rebuttals are unsatisfactory and e. ) The affirmation's contentions hold more relevance and bearing than the negations. Judge, vote for the affirmation and for Pro. Thank you.