Andrew Jackson should be removed from the 20 Dollar Bill

Let us go back to the main points of this round and see why the voting issues point to the affirmation. But first, I will address some minor issues made by my opponent. In my opponent's last post, my opponent stated that I needed to mention a person to replace Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. I see no reason as to why I have to do this. This debate is about the merits of Jackson, and whether or not the qualities of his character and Presidency deserve him being on currency. This is not a debate about who should be on the currency. It can be a bald eagle on the twenty-dollar bill, or the flag, or anything really; this debate should not hinge on this issue whatsoever. There also appears to be something my opponent is misunderstanding as well; in rebuttal to his point about Jackson solving the national debt, I mentioned that Jackson's actions led to the longest economic depression in national history, and I even provided a source to add bearing to my claim. My opponent's rebuttal to this, as can be seen in his previous post, is that "Jackson actually solved the national debt". As I've said before, I agree with my opponent on this; Jackson did solve the national debt. Yet Jackson's actions eventually led to a long, frustrating economic depression. What should be weighed more in this round; solving the debt, or causing terrific economic turmoil? In my opinion, we should be looking to the latter. I find a comment by my opponent to be rather curious; he states that he "already refuted the Indian Removal Act point", yet his rebuttal is that "Trail of Tears didn't happen under Jackson", "Jackson was not wholely responsible" and the rebuttal my opponent has been referring to this entire debate: "You can't judge a nineteenth-century man by modern standards". As I've established, the first rebuttal does not rebut anything; I've provided evidence and reasoning that connects Jackson's actions to the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. The second doesn't rebut either, because I've never stated anything along the lines of that and, again, I've provided conclusive evidence that shows his actions resulted in TToT. I will now address my opponent's third rebuttal, as it is arguably the major point of the round. My opponent's only real major rebuttal to my points regarding slavery (where I've provided evidence--which he has not rebutted--that Jackson supported and owned slaves and prevented the progression of abolitionism) and Indian Removal (which, as I've previously mentioned, has rebuttals that fall flat) is that one cannot judge a nineteenth-century man with twenty-first century standards. This is my opponent's biggest rebuttal to my contentions as well as my rebuttals to his contentions, and it is easily the most flawed. Imagine, for instance, that we are in the Deep South during the 1950s. Tensions over racial equality are escalating, and African-Americans are finding themselves facing more and more challenges in their path towards equality. In this scenario, I am a white person who believes in segregation. I have become increasingly annoyed by the attempts of African-Americans to gain rights, and I decide to take matters into my own hands. I go out, in the middle of the night, and kill a black family in their sleep. I'm arrested and tried for my crimes, and it seems most, conclusive evidence points to me committing the murders. However, I stand up and I say that I am simply a product of my town and family's racist views--it's not my fault that I killed that family! The court, listening to me, disregards the conclusive evidence and decides to let me go free. Is that justice? Is that right? No. Evidence showed that I killed human beings, perfectly fine humans, and yet I get off by saying I am a product of my times-- is that right? No. And that it is the situation we have on our hands here. My opponent is attempting to use an excuse, a little, tiny excuse, to excuse the deaths of thousands and the continued support of an institution almost all nowadays condemn. Is that right? Keep in mind, this is what you are voting on this round. You, the judge, are voting between hard evidence pointing Jackson to the deaths of thousands and the continued suffering of many more Africans, and being a "war hero" and a "pioneer". Are you going to vote for the hard, conclusive facts or are you going to vote on something that is largely an opinion? Why should you, as a judge, vote for an excuse over hard reasoning and facts? You cannot look to the negation in this debate; I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmation.