Andrew Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill.

Before I start my construct, I would like to point out that my opponent has brought up only one real point for why Andrew Jackson should not be on 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". The only reason that he favored this commodity based currency is that he believed it would be the best thing for keeping our economy in a sound state. He did not express any ill feelings towards "fiat money" and popular belief between many historians, Michael Baradat to name one, is that he would not mind his face being on American currency. 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. 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! The question brought before the house is "Should Andrew Jackson be removed from the $20 bill? " not, "Is the 20 ethical" or "Should we switch to a tyrannical form of currency? " it seems my opponent has only been touching on the last two other than the first of which I have stuck to my entire speech, save some minor lapses where I was forced to entertain a ridiculous claim brought up by the pro side. So any point not relating to Andrew Jackson's worthiness to be portrayed on the $20 dollar bill must be thrown out. 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. I will say it again. This debate isn't about changing the $20 dollar bill, it's about changing the face on it. 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, we must assume that the opposition has won in saying that Andrew Jackson must retain his rightful seat on the $20 dollar bill. My opponent's next point was that Andrew Jackson portrayed on a piece of American currency is equivalent to a picture of Martin Luther King in KKK robes. If anything is absurd, this point is! No president, no matter his monetary belief would object to being honored on a piece of American currency. In fact, the original case of Andrew Jackson being put on the $20 bill is proof showing that it was not offensive. For why would we purposely dishonor a true American Hero? 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. So 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. But we're Americans! And we honor our presidents, so vote con, and respect not only Andrew Jackson, but AMERICA! 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. 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. So next time, look up a point before you so randomly throw it out there. We try to have historical evidence in debates. .. My opponent's next point was as drastically un-cited as the last point, and the little historical evidence brought up was wrong. Jackson did not "Remove" the deposits in the bank at all. He merely let the charter run itself out. My opponent's next point was that the suddenness, which didn't happen, caused economic harm. The little economic harm that came about during his presidency was caused by malfunctioning railroads and canals that were slowing down trade, none at all was caused by the government, so that point should be thrown out. My opponent's last point requires little refuting at all, the first point was Andrew Jackson didn't just sit on his heels and refuse to renew the charter, you're right he actively told congress that he would veto renewing the charter so, correct. My opponent's point after that was Jackson said he would "kill" the bank. Presidents use exaggerated wording all the time to stir up their audiences the mere fact he said "kill" only proves that he was a stirring speaker. 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. So over all 6/9 points my opponent made in his last speech were irrelevant. Such an unregulated amount of relevance shows a lack of preparation and sound points.