John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel.

What my opponent has done in responding to my contentions is misquote them and slice them up without adding any context. In some cases he left of important parts of the contention and took advantage of what easy to pick apart without all the information. In other words he pulled a Jon Stewart. http://www.youtube.com... Let's move onto some examples "He advocated justice..." my full quote talked said: "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." Rather then refute the actual point you took just part of the quote and ignored the significance of the event and I stated "Appointed John Marshal to the supreme court..." in full I said: "Appointed John Marshal to the supreme court, someone who would very influential in declaring the powers of the court, including judicial review." As I stated John Marshall was instrumental in establishing the powers of the court. Before that point the supreme court was considered a joke. ""He was against slavery and never owned slaves..." I also am against slavery and never owned slaves, do I deserve to be on the nickel?" Once again my full quote was "He was against slavery and never owned slaves. He and his wife Abagail fought against slavery and PAID free black men for help on the farm. You could say Jefferson was against slavery. And he was. In words only. Jefferson owned over 200 slaves." Seeing as you think slavery was wrong then how do you explain that Jefferson owned over 200, while John Adams owned none? You chopped up my quote and destroyed the significance of the comparison. 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? "Thomas Jefferson presided over...The Louisiana Purchase" So he bought some land? So do 150 million other Americans. Do they deserve to be on the nickel? 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. ""He was our first vice president." --- How does being the first VP have anything to do with getting on the nickel. Dick Cheney was the 46th VP, should he be on the nickel?" Being the first VP contains much more significance then being the 46th does. It set's up a precedent of what the whole of the job is. Take for example Washington, by being the first president and only serving 2 terms he set forth the idea that presidents should only serve two terms. Adams helped establish the role of the VP in the same way. I will also remind you that Adams was picked over Jefferson for VP. 77 in electoral votes to Jefferson's 4. Clearly they knew who the better man was :) "My opponent also tries to argue that Jefferson hated debt. The Louisiana Purchase (828,800 square miles) was bought for today's equivalent of $213 million. Which equates to 3 cents per acre." This does not refute my contention of Jefferson bring hypocritical by preaching 1 thing and doing another. I think you need to re-read my original rebuttal which stated: "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!" The quote from Napoleon should is irrelevant to your rebuttal to my contention. "My opponent's source for his point 3 rebuttal is a link to the Louisiana Purchase, which has nothing to do with my point. My point stands." The link to the Louisiana purchase just sourced what I was saying in my rebuttal above. I like to source the information I present, after all a debate is based on facts. "5) My opponent also uses the same logic for Jefferson's statement of human rights: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He claims that other people have said "similar" statements before. This is true, but the only reason "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." is known to the universe is because Jefferson wrote it in one of the most important documents in the history of man."" Well he didn't write those exact lines. As I said before it was more of a collaboration. I agree he was the main author but the ideas he presented were not knew. Would you agree to "made famous by"? You also didn't respond to my point about how it was Adams who got Jefferson to draft a copy of the constitution, he did not volunteer. I think that is at least worth noting. The original line he wrote was: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness." [1] ""Father of our 6th president..." --- Once again, how does being the father of an important person have anything to do with getting on the nickel. Should George H.W. Bush be on the nickel? He was also Prez, and his son was Prez." I think it creates a sense of legacy. Adams has instilled the values he had himself in his own son. I do think fathering a child that becomes president is certainly accomplishment. Especially when you consider that how much of an influence Adams had on his son. ""Adams created the Navy..." --- He created the name of the Navy. The Navy obviously existed before Adams."" The ideas in the Declaration obviously existed before Jeffferson, yet you argue that the fact he officially brought it to the masses. The same applies here. If you're going to use that argument for Jefferson then you ave to concede this point to me. Adams really beefed up the Navy, by officially establishing it and heavily investing in it to protect against the French attacks in the Quasi War. "6) Pro talks about seigniorage. Seigniorage has to do with collector coins, not normal coins (ie. nickel). Since the resolution is about the nickel and not collector coins, my point stands." Refer to my rebuttal of your closing statements. My opponent in general just responded to most of my contentions with different individuals that had done similar things. The point is the Adams did all of these himself. If my opponent can prove 1 individual did ALL the things I stated in my contentions, then I will happily concede this debate to him. "I have proved that Thomas Jefferson is more influential than John Adams and also that there is a negative economic motive to put John Adams on the nickel. I have proved that John Adams is unique in no way whatsoever, as evidenced by my rebuttals of Pro's contentions. Resolution negated. Once again I think your missing the point. Just because Jefferson was more influential doesn't mean he should be on the nickel. The honoring of Jefferson is disproportionate to his achievements. I believe the same is true for Adams, which is what this debate was about. 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? If you can see by my contentions Adams was unique, who else was the second president of the U.S.? That's unique. Unfortunately I have no space left and I will have to respond