Andrew Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill.

"That point was "Andrew Jackson did not approve of fiat money", to quote my opponent, "this is unwarranted revisionism". Andrew Jackson may have favored commodity backed currency during his presidency, but that is only because he feared for the country's economic welfare. He thought, by passing the Specie Circular in 1836 he would prevent a future economic downturn when people started buying large amounts of land in the west with "soft money"." This would be a valid argument if you could show where in his speeches or writings there is a "fiat is okay in the future, just not right now" statement. You can't, because there is no such place. "He did not express any ill feelings towards "fiat money"" Check his farewell address. http://en.wikisource.org...'s_Farewell_Address Or, translated out of politicese, he's attributed by Remini's Andrew Jackson and the Bank War as having called paper (fiat) "The instrument of the swindler and the cheat." "and popular belief between many historians, Michael Baradat to name one, is that he would not mind his face being on American currency." "Popular belief" with no verifiable referents is useless, even if it's professionals choosing to believe it without evidence. "He would be honored for his face to be portrayed on the most used bill in America and no amount of past ideals can change that. " No amount of the bill being against what he stood for can change whether he would feel honored about it? By that reasoning, John Locke should be quite honored to have his face on a Cuban ration. " My opponent's next point was much like his whole speech. It lacked evidence. Just because the teenager fighting for the proposition believes that "The $20 bill is unethical". This has no relevance for what we are talking about!" It does indeed have relevance. If the removal of a face from a bill is a necessary condition of the removal of a bill (which it is), and the removal of a bill is good, it follows that the removal of a face from a bill is good. " The next 4 points my opponent brought to the table were all largely irrelevant because they related not to Andrew Jackson but the $20 dollar bill it's self." Excuse me, but the "$20 bill" itself is part of the resolution as written. This means information about the 20 dollar bill is relevant. It does not ask "Should Andrew Jackson's face appear on whatever currency there should be?" but "should it appear on the 20 dollar bill?" "And since you have obviously failed to bring up a good argument for taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill that I have not brought substantial historical evidence to refute" Namedropping a random historian to whom I can find no references other than a facebook page, who cites no evidence, is not "substantial historical evidence." The ultimate authority on Andrew Jackson's opinion is Andrew Jackson, and his statements support my interpretation, not yours. " No president, no matter his monetary belief would object to being honored on a piece of American currency." My opponent has never even been 1 president, let alone all presidents. Therefore he has no possible knwledge of what "no president" would object to, unless he can find a statement from each and every one of them detailing their lack of objection. "In fact, the original case of Andrew Jackson being put on the $20 bill is proof showing that it was not offensive." Performing an act proves it is not offensive? This renders the concept "offense" without any possible referent in reality, in any situation. By your reasoning here, nothing on earth is offensive to anyone in any way. "For why would we purposely dishonor a true American Hero?" First, this is a misleading question. Dishonoring someone does not have to be purposive. It can result from stupidity as well as malice, something the sort of people making these decisions have never lacked for. Second, any reasonable person seeking to establish a policy will note that in most cases dishonoring in one way or another one's most important opponents is often helpful. Third, there is no "We." No unanimous action is being proposed. There is you, there is I, there are the bureaucrats, and there are a number of other parties, all with separate interests in this matter. "I am positive that when he was put on there was the object of controversy that he should not because of "..." reason. But obviously it was not a good enough reason to keep him from being accepted as the next candidate for the $20 bill." Again, appealing to the fact as justification for the prescription. This is not valid. Otherwise I could claim, by the same reasoning, that because Hitler was given power, obviously preventing genocide wasn't a good enough reason to prevent his attaining of power. "o taking Jackson off the $20 would in fact be dishonoring him because of this. But it wouldn't only dishonor Jackson, but America as a whole. For what is a country that takes someone off a piece of currency for objecting to something." For objecting to the currency? I dunno, a country with half a brain and a smidgen of integrity, for once? I object to the gallows, which is why you should not leave me on them, unless you wish to dishonor me. :). "But we're Americans! And we honor our presidents, so vote con, and respect not only Andrew Jackson, but AMERICA!" "Respect" does not consist of saying "Yes, continue doing wrong, your majesty, we love you for it." Respect consists of making recommendations that make sense. If you wish to respect either Jackson or the currency, let alone both, separate the two, they don't mix well. If you wish to respect America, give it a currency suitable for a free country. It is only if you disrespect all three that you can continue encouraging such a symbolic contradiction. " My opponent's next point was that Andrew Jackson didn't cite any regional favoritism while distributing taxpayer money. Did you even RESEARCH how money was distributed back then!?!?!??! Distributing taxpayer money was the job of congress, not the executive branch" You are twisting my words to mean something completely different than they do. This is not unique among your arguments here, merely a particularly egregious example. My point was that he didn't cite any regional favoritism IN the bank's actions (Obviously Congress delegated some distribution of money to the bank, or it wouldn't be a BANK), as the reason for his objections. He cited it's favor of those who become rich by government favor, and it's lack of redeeming qualities. Region was not mentioned. "Andrew Jackson had to close down the bank because it was the only thing that he COULD do to make sure each state was equally represented." Equal representation of the states WAS NOT MENTIONED as a reason when he closed down the bank. Pay attention to the reasons he actually gave, not the ones you imagine for him. " My opponent's next point was as drastically un-cited as the last point," You have yet to make a single citation of a specific work, the closest thing to it was a citation of a random historian, without even providing the historian's probably nonexistent reasoning. "Jackson did not "Remove" the deposits in the bank at all." http://www.u-s-history.com... http://www.maths.tcd.ie... "ackson then used his second presidential election victory later that year as a mandate to order the withdrawal of all federal funds from the bank in 1833" Sure seems like he did. Last I checked, he even rewarded Taney with a Supreme Court seat for carrying out his orders. " And finally, my opponent's last point had to do with the economic stature of the $20 dollar bill, which, yet again, has nothing to do with why Andrew Jackson should be removed from it." I wouldn't want my face on a symbol soon to be tarnished. Would you?