John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel.

======================= I have already provided a definition of the word "should" in my opening argument. I stated that "should" refers to a morally binding duty or obligation. As the first person in this debate to provide a definition for that word, my definition stands. ========================== I shall now quote my opponent and leave a response: "If you read my first round arguments you wound know I stated that he is not properly honored and I believe placing him on the nickel would fill this void. We honor people because of their life achievements and contributions; Adams had many of these. " My opponent has failed to provide evidence that Adams is, in fact, not honored properly. That is simply my opponent's opinion, and he has not provided any factual evidence as to why that is true. There are many people who honor Adams properly. Placing a man's face on a nickel is not necessarily honoring that man. Thomas Paine is not honored properly, so according to your standards, he should be on the nickel. My opponent's logic is faulty and fallacious. Thomas Jefferson had many life achievements. He served as Secretary of State, President, and chief writer of the Declaration of Independence. My opponent only brings an opinion about honoring Adams and does not back it up. "I would now like to point out that if my opponent wishes to suggest one of our other founding fathers is more deserving then Adams, then burden of proof is now on him and not me. This is evidenced by his own words, 'I have the ability to convince the readers that another person besides Adams should replace Jefferson. ' I will now show the disparity between Adams and the other founding fathers the my opponent has mentioned. " My opponent has failed to express a moral obligation in placing Adams on the nickel. He has not achieved the Burden of Proof. Since "should" refers to a morally binding duty, my opponent has not presented evidence as to why there is one. My opponent's references to Adams's achievements and "not being honored properly" are not proof as to why Adams should be on the nickel. There are plenty of other men and women who have many achievements and are not honored properly. "Alexander Hamilton: Take out a $10 bill and look who's on it. I think it's safe to say Hamilton has been honored. " It does not matter about being honored! Others will disagree and say that Adams is honored. That is an opinion. My opponent has not provided real evidence as to why there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel, which is what the debate is really about. "John Hancock: First of all I will remind you and voters that the burden of proof is now on you not not me. Hancock's achievements were not nearly as great as Adams'. Everything you mentioned Adams had done as well: Signer of the Declaration of Independence. So was Adams. He opposed the Stamp Act. Who didn't? Elected (1766) to the legislature. So was Adams. Governor of Massachusetts. Adam's was president of the United States of America. " However, Hancock was also president of the Continental Congress. This was when the delegates decided to rebel and proposed the Declaration of Independence. Without Hancock leading the Congress, we may not have rebelled against Britain and become independent. That is a huge achievement, much more worthy to put on the AMERICAN nickel than John Adams. I would like to mention that my opponent keeps bringing up the fact that Adams is not honored properly, and that is why he should be on the nickel. However, that is only my opponent's opinion. Most of my friends believe Adams has been honored in a sufficient amount. My opponent has not provided any evidence as to why there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel, which is what the debate is about. John Jay (not Joy): He was the first Chief Justice and symbolized the beginning of a true judiciary branch. His leadership helped establish the checks and balance system in America, which is quite significant. "Once again his achievements are no where near Adams. " Again, this is opinionated. There are different views of what achievements are important to specific parts of the government or the economy. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase. Consequently, Americans were able to use more resources and became a much stronger nation. Once again, my opponent only uses opinion, tries to provide facts of Adams's achievements, but has failed to use proper logic. "To say Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is a grave ignorance of historical fact. " I never said Jefferson wrote the entire Declaration of Independence. I stated that he was its chief author. My opponent calls me ignorant? Poor conduct. My opponent is ignorant in trying to prove a moral obligation with an opinion of Adams not being honored properly. He has failed to accomplish his Burden as of yet. "It's interesting you "highlight" these points. First I'd like to note that it's hard to give credit to Jefferson merely because they had an opportunity to do something that others did not. Anyone who was the president at the time would've made the Louisiana purchase. Jefferson just merely was at the right place at the right time. I think it should be noted that the purchase and expedition also goes against the very thing Jefferson preached against, big government. To make the very purchase you highlighted Jefferson had to use the very thing he hated Alexander Hamilton for, the national line of credit and debt he argued against! [7]" This is very ignorant. Jefferson used intelligence, foreign policy, and great leadership in creating the Declaration of Independence. Your little rant is like me saying that anyone else could have done what Adams did, and just as well. The truth of the matter is, many of the other revolutionists possessed the traits that Adams did and achieved the achievements that Adams did. Earlier, my opponent stated that similarities between Hancock and Adams. Well, that just proves that there were many other great men that could go on the nickel instead of Adams. My opponent then states that Jefferson hated debt and once he was in power, he had no problem defying his own principles. Jefferson states that he does not want to be in perpetual debt, which would essentially mean debt that would not be able to be paid off. He realized that some debt was needed to keep Americans working and achieve successes abroad. My opponent's argument for this was quite weak. "Points Dropped by my opponent: 0 A B C D E F G H I G K L So ALL OF THEM. " My opponent tries to impress the audience with the list of achievements I ignored about Adams. These were not points, they were more of a description of what Adams did. However, my opponent has not achieved his Burden of Proof in showing that there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel. Resolution negated. =========== It is obvious to tell my opponent has not reached his Burden. In his conclusion, he rants and displays poor conduct towards me. He has still failed to provide a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel. He constantly states that Adams is not honored properly. This is merely an opinion and my opponent did not back it up. I provided other historical figures who just as easily deserved to be honored more properly and be placed on the nickel. Resolution negated. Thank you for the challenge and the opportunity.