John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel.

My opponent, rather then confront my contentions, has regressed into his old shenanigans of chopping up and misconstruing my contentions. I'm ask the voters to read what was actually written before voting. I'll reinforce my contentions, then move into my closing statement. ""He defended the soldiers at the Boston Massacre..." --- Once again, my opponent is bringing up a normal contention. John Adams was a lawyer and won a trial... so what?" I've already answered this: "He defended the soldiers at the Boston Massacre even though he knew it would hurt his reputation and he wouldn't be paid. He did the impossible and got 6 of the 8 men acquitted and the 2 others only charged with manslaughter down from murder. If he had not been the lawyer the British soldiers would've been falsely prosecuted. The trial was in Boston, the most "revolutionary" of the colonies at the time, and even still he convinced the jury of their innocence. No small feat." ""Appointed John Marshal to the supreme court..." --- There were many influential Supreme Court Justices. Just because John Adams appointed an influential justice, does not make Adams special." In fact it does. Nominating supreme court justices who went on to very influential and well respected, positively reflects him. It's certainly not something Jefferson did. ""Seeing as you think slavery was wrong then how do you explain that Jefferson owned over 200, while John Adams owned none?" --- Jefferson was simply comforming to social norms of the South. You will be hard pressed to find any rich man in the South who didn't own slaves. George Washington also owned slaves , but should Washington have his face taken off the dollar bill for that? No." There are a couple of problems with your rebuttal. First, your comparison to Washington is misleading. Washington never spoke out against slavery, while Jefferson did even though he had over 200. Second, I think it's important to remember what is popular is not always right. Adams knew this and practiced this throughout his life. He refused to go to war with France even though the people wanted to because he knew he could resolve the issue peacefully. He knew slavery was wrong and refused to own slaves. He only employed free black men which he paid. ""To continue to show how ridiculous my opponents debating strategy is, I will use the same technique. 'Jefferson's preamble to the Declaration.....' So he put 7 words together? I can do that too! See: 'I am embarrassing you right now, yeah!' Does that mean I deserve to be on the nickel?" >I am under the impression that your 7 words didn't become an enduring statement of human rights, so my logic doesn't apply here. "So he bought some land? So do 150 million other Americans. Do they deserve to be on the nickel?" >No. Because the Louisiana Purchase more than doubled the land size of this country at a minimal price." I don't think you got it. It was a means of humor to show that when you take things out of context like you have the meaning can get distorted. I quote from last round: "Clearly I took what he was saying out of context and diminished it's significance. I would appreciated my it if my opponent would not use such techniques since they diminish the point of debate; to find the truth." ""This does not refute my contention of Jefferson bring hypocritical..." --- The Louisiana Purchase has led to massive revenue and profits, incomparable to the amount spent." So in other words you concede this point? "[Jefferson] is on Mount Rushmore, has a memorial at DC, has college named after him, and is on the two dollar bill. What does Adams have at national scale? Nothing." --- Hmm... If I was a lay-person looking at this debate and saw the above quoted statement, I would think that Thomas Jefferson is the much more important person. A more important person deserves more recognition than a no-name (John Adams)." There's a difference between recognition and honor. Honor: award: a tangible symbol signifying approval or distinction; Recognition: the state or quality of being recognized or acknowledged; Honor is recognition for good achievements. Recognition is for just being influential. See my comparison of Hitler. Obviously Jefferson was in no ways Hitler, nor do I mean to suggest so, but just being important or influential does not mean your instantly a honorable person. ""Well he didn't write those exact lines." >Yes he did... See your quoted "original line". The last part is "...life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."" Once again you attempt to misquote me. I was referring to the entire preamble. ""Father of our 6th president..." --- My opponenet concede this point. He has demonstrated there is no difference between John Adams Sr. and George Bush Sr." Why do I need to demonstrate a difference? They're both great achievements to father a son to become president. ""Just because Jefferson was more influential doesn't mean he should be on the nickel." >Take note- My opponent concedes that Jefferson was more influential than John Adams." He was. No doubt about that. Being influential does not mean you get to be honored. Hitler was more influential, should we put him on the nickel? I'll continue to address this point in my closing statement. ""You have not proved how much it would cost to put Adams on the Nickel. The profit derived from seigniorage I agree would be nominal, but it would cancel out the cost of changing the face. Why wouldn't these costs be nominal as well?" >I have already rebutted this. Seignorage applies to collector coins. We are talking about normal nickels. This point is void." You haven't proved the cost of changing the face of the nickel would be anything, but nominal, however. "I have proved that John Adams successes were not unique, he was just a player in American History who had a much lesser impact than Jefferson, which my opponent conceded." Having an impact in history is not a qualification, as I said before Hitler had a large impact, should he be on the nickel? Also see my closing statement. "*Awaits ways in which Adams set the precedent." "Toward the end of his first term, he began to exercise more restraint in the hope of realizing the goal shared by many of his successors: election in his own right as president of the United States" http://tinyurl.com... ">My opponent conceded the following contentions: 1, 2, 3, and 4. >I have successfully defended my opponent's rebuttals of my contentions 5 and 6." These have already been addressed I will not go through them again. Refer to the above and the entire debate Points Dropped by my opponent entirely: [D] [E] [F] [G] [I] [K] CLOSING STATEMENTS My opponent has distorted the point of this debate and Adam's accomplishments. Even if he were to prove Jefferson "the better man" that does not affirm the resolution. Many voters I'm sure did not know all of what John Adam's achieved in his life. His achievements are certainly comparable to Jefferson's. Yet Jefferson is honored disproportionate to his achievements. Between being on the two dollar bill, nickel, Mt. Rushmore, and having a memorial in D.C. Shouldn't we leave some room for Adams? He has nothing to be honored by! The nickel is the right place for him because it's on a national scale, is cheap to do, and doesn't disregard or take away what Jefferson did. For a man that gave so much for his country shouldn't we give him something back? I'll leave you with a quote from Adams. A desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired by his fellows is one of the earliest as well as the keenest dispositions discovered in the heart of man. John Adams