Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

I will now conclude this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for such lively and punctual rounds. It was a pleasure. Key Refutations1. My opponent mentioned three of my rebuttals to his trail of tears point but left out my FOURTH AND FIFTH REBUTTAL, which he failed to counter refute, and that is that Jackson did this to protect the citizens and stop the south from seceding. See argument #3. THIS IS KEY. HE HAS NOT COUNTER REFUTED THESE REBUTTALS.2. My opponent said that he doesn't have to mention who should be on the twenty dollar bill instead of Andrew Jackson, however he should completely do this if he wants to prove that Andrew Jackson is not worthy of being on the bill. I see it as completely necessary to show who would be on the bill instead of Jackson, because even if Jackson was bad, (which he is not) my opponent has named no one that is better than him. We are debating whether the United States Government should remove Andrew Jackson from the bill. They would need a replacement.3. My opponent says that Jackson's actions led to a depression, however, his evidence is not conclusive. It is still unsure what caused the Panic of 1837. Jackson solved the national debt! Also, it is worth noting that my opponent has brought up the Specie Circular as well as the Vetoing of the Second National Bank as things that led to the depression, however Jackson did these things to stop the south from seceding, which he was successful in doing. For weight in this argument, it should be "solving the national debt and stopping the south from seceding, or a possible contribution to a recession. "4. I would like to restate my rebuttals for the Indian Removal Act, all five of them (two of them he has not counter refuted, and none he has counter refuted thoroughly or succesfully). a. The Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jacksonb. Jackson was not wholely responsiblec. You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by twenty-first century standards. d. Andrew Jackson saw the native americans as enemies because they supported the British in the war of 1812 and were holding precious land that both sides needed. e. If new lands for cotton cultivation weren't added to the Union, Jackson feared the South might become scared the North was becoming too powerful and secede from the Union.5. My opponent had a long and irrelevant allegory for Jackson, where Jackson "killed a family of black people"This is a silly metaphor. Jackson did nothing to harm the slaves. He just didn't act on slavery like Abraham Lincoln. He tried to stop the circulation of abolitionist texts because they were conspiratorial towards the government. Jackson did not harm the slaves in any way. In conclusion, men can't be judged by attitudes. Men can't be deemed "not great" because they didn't abolish slavery. When looking at this debate, look at all the amazing things Jackson accomplished during his presidency, all of the standards he set, all of the good deeds he did for this country, then look at my opponent's arguments. Jackson expanded American territory (I have completely justified this in my refutations), Jackson was racist (like every other president on bills and all of his contemporaries), Jackson may have contributed to recession (for reasons I have justified,).