The Instigator
ilovgoogle
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ilovgoogle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,386 times Debate No: 9296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

ilovgoogle

Pro

First round introductions------------
John Adam is one our great founding fathers, and one that is not honored properly. Placing his face on the nickel would do this man justice.
----------------------
I do not believe definitions are necessary as this is a pretty straightforward topic, but then again this debate.org so I reserve the right clarify the topic should I deem necessary.

Arguments:
I think this should be a good one. I ask that the voters please read all that is being presented to them before voting. Thank you!
Arguments:
0:The printing of John Adams nickels could spur collectors to buy them up and actually turn a profit. This is not uncommon and is called seigniorage. [5]
A: He was our first vice president.
B: Father of our 6th president, John Quincy Adams. He also greatly helped educate John Quincy sending him to Russia for his education and helping him learn skills that he would end up using in his presidency.
C: He advocated justice not matter for who and what the cost. 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.
D: He was a man of sacrifice. He knew he had an obligation to his country and he did so without hesitation. He spent most of the revolution in France and Holland trying to secure funding and military equipment for our soldiers back home. For someone who wanted to be on the front lines this must have been tough for him. Not even to mention the fact he had to leave his "greatest adviser" and wife back home, Abagael Adams. But he did so in order to help his country no matter the cost.
E: He was Ambassador to Britain. I mean you've got to feel for this guy. We just destroyed and embarrassed the greatest empire of all time and who do they choose to go meet the man who was the "last to consent to separation", King George III? That's right, John Adams. I think this video says it better then my words ever can.
F: He never waived in the face of public opinion. The country put great pressure on him to enter with France . He didn't want American blood shed and preferred to use the diplomatic route. This greatly effected the election of the 1800 with Jefferson wanting war. During the elections a peace treaty was signed, but due to the slow travel of news this would not be known till after the election. [6]
G: 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. [7]
H: John Adams had a HBO mini series that has won more Emmys then any other miniseries. Ever. Not to mention the 4 Golden globes. If Jefferson is so great then why doesn't he have a HBO series?
I: Adams created the Navy [8]
K: Jefferson is already honored in many other ways. He is on Mount Rushmore, has a memorial at DC, has college named after him, and is on the two dollar bill. What does Adams have at national scale? Nothing. He deserves to be on the nickel.
L: Appointed John Marshal to the supreme court, someone who would very influential in declaring the powers of the court, including judicial review. [9]

Even is you could prove Jefferson is the "better man" that doesn't mean Adams should not be on the nickel. All of our founding fathers are great men and deserve to be honored. As I've said Jefferson is already on the two dollar bill, and has numerous other memorabilia, time to Adams some credit.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] John Adams by David McCullough
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://tinyurl.com...
[9] http://tinyurl.com...

I look forward to my opponents response!
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the challenge and the readers for another opportunity.

I shall negate the resolution, "John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel."

============================

Burden of Proof: My opponent holds the Burden of Proof to show that John Adams should replace Thomas Jefferson on the nickel. If I am able to prove otherwise, the resolution shall be negated.

============================

Clarifications:

1) The word "should" in the definitions refers to a morally binding duty or obligation.
2) The resolution solely refers to John Adams replacing Thomas Jefferson. I have the ability to convince the readers that another person besides Adams should replace Jefferson.

============================

First Round Introductions: I understand that John Adams is one of our great Founding Fathers. He may not be honored properly, but there are many other Founding Fathers who are not honored properly either, including: Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, John Jay, and even Thomas Paine. Some people may honor these men deeply, as do I, but much of the American population does not. Why should these Founding Fathers be rejected from placing their faces on the nickel? They are in the same boat as Adams, in the essence that they are usually not honored properly either.

============================

Definitions: I would like to point out that the word "should" in the resolution refers to a morally binding duty or obligation.

============================

Arguments: My opponent basically described the various achievements that John Adams accomplished in his lifetime. At the end of his list, my opponent quotes, "Even is you could prove Jefferson is the "better man" that doesn't mean Adams should not be on the nickel. All of our founding fathers are great men and deserve to be honored. As I've said Jefferson is already on the two dollar bill, and has numerous other memorabilia, time to Adams some credit."
However, my opponent's descriptions of John Adams does not prove why he should be on the nickel. Although he did many things in his lifetime, that does not show at all why he SHOULD be on the nickel.

Here are some facts on other Founding Fathers not properly honored:

Alexander Hamilton: http://virtualology.com...
"Apart from his contributions to The Federalist and his reorganization of the United States financial system in the 1790's Hamilton is best remembered for his consistent emphasis on the need for a strong central government. His advocacy of the doctrine of "implied powers" to advance a broad interpretation of the Constitution has been invoked frequently to justify the extension of federal authority and has greatly influence a number of Supreme Court decisions."
Not to mention he was the first Secretary of the Treasury.

Patrick Henry: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com...
"Fiery orator and tireless champion of American independence who is best known for his speech ending with, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" He was an outspoken critic of the Stamp Act and introduced seven resolutions against it to the Virginia House of Burgesses. He was the first governor of Virginia and led the fight for the adoption of the Bill of Rights."

John Hancock: http://www.encyclopedia.com...
"John Hancock 1737-93, political leader in the American Revolution, signer of the Declaration of Independence, b. Braintree, Mass. From an uncle he inherited Boston's leading mercantile firm, and naturally he opposed the Stamp Act (1765) and other British trade restrictions. In 1768 his ship Liberty was seized as a smuggler and confiscated by the crown. A riot ensued, and later the ship was burned. Hancock was hailed as a martyr and elected (1766) to the legislature, where he joined Samuel Adams in advocating resistance to England. In 1775, Gen. Thomas Gage issued a warrant for their arrest, but they escaped. Hancock was a member (1775-80, 1785-86) and president (1775-77, 1785-86) of the Continental Congress. His name appears first (and largest) on the Declaration of Independence, and the term "John Hancock" is often used to mean a signature. He was governor of Massachusetts (1780-85, 1787-93)."

John Jay: http://education.yahoo.com...
"American statesman, first Chief Justice of the United States."

Thomas Paine: http://atheism.about.com...
"The son of Quakers, Thomas Paine (1737-1809) made an impressive mark on American society and politics with his stinging political essays. His first, African Slavery in America, was published in 1775 and sharply criticized slavery as unjust and inhumane. Destined to be much more famous and influential was his pamphlet Common Sense, published on January 10, 1776."

Even Thomas Jefferson himself was remarkable. He was the chief author of the Declaration of Independence, served as Secretary of State and as President of the United States, and doubled the size of America with the Louisiana Purchase.

Essentially, my opponent would need to prove that other Founding Fathers and great men of the Revolutionary Era should be disregarded from being placed on the nickel. All of the men I mentioned were just as important as John Adams in the shaping of America. Most of the men I provided were just as involved in politics, the Revolutionary War, and the government as John Adams was. Why shouldn't they be on the nickel? Why should John Adams go on the nickel and not them? My opponent has not yet proved that John Adams should be placed above these other men and placed on the nickel.

============================

Conclusion: My opponent has not reached his Burden of Proof. He has failed to prove why John Adams should be placed on the nickel instead of other Founding Fathers. My opponent has not provided evidence as to why there is a morally binding duty or obligation to place John Adams on the nickel. I have given sources and views of other great men who deserve to be on the nickel as much as John Adams does. I heavily urge a Con vote.

I thank my opponent and the readers for this excellent topic.
Debate Round No. 1
ilovgoogle

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. My opponent proposes that he should be able to prove that there founding father more worthy then Adams to replace Jefferson on the nickel, will not my original intent I will welcome this change.
---------------
Since we do not have a textbook definition of "should" I will propose one.
Definitions:
should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [1]
--------------
"However, my opponent's descriptions of John Adams does not prove why he should be on the nickel. Although he did many things in his lifetime, that does not show at all why he SHOULD be on the nickel."

If you read my first round arguments you wound know I stated that he is not properly honored and I believe placing him on the nickel would fill this void. We honor people because of their life achievements and contributions; Adams had many of these.

I would now like to point out that if my opponent wishes to suggest one of our other founding fathers is more deserving then Adams, then burden of proof is now on him and not me. This is evidenced by his own words, "I have the ability to convince the readers that another person besides Adams should replace Jefferson." I will now show the disparity between Adams and the other founding fathers the my opponent has mentioned.

Alexander Hamilton: Take out a $10 bill and look who's on it. I think it's safe to say Hamilton has been honored.

John Hancock: First of all I will remind you and voters that the burden of proof is now on you not not me. Hancock's achievements were not nearly as great as Adams'. Everything you mentioned Adams had done as well:

Signer of the Declaration of Independence. So was Adams.
He opposed the Stamp Act. Who didn't?
Elected (1766) to the legislature. So was Adams.
Governor of Massachusetts. Adam's was president of the United States of America.

Even still with his minuscule achievements in the face of Adams' he is honored even more then him. This is part of the reason I started this debate.
"The U.S. Navy has named vessels USS Hancock and USS John Hancock; a World War II Liberty ship was also named in his honor. Ten states have a Hancock County named for him; other places named after him include Hancock, Massachusetts; Hancock, Michigan; Hancock, New York; and Mount Hancock in New Hampshire. The John Hancock Insurance company, founded in Boston in 1862, was also named for him; it had no connection to Hancock's own business ventures. The insurance company has passed on the name to famous office buildings (the John Hancock Tower in Boston and the John Hancock Center in Chicago) and the John Hancock Student Village at Boston University." [2]

John Joy: He was first chief justice? Ya, your going to need more then that if you want prove he is more worthy. The supreme court was considered a joke before Madbury VS Madison established the powers of the court. [3]

Patrick Henry: All but 2 people on every majorly used currency in the US has been a US president. Hamilton because he created a national bank and very involved the creation on the financial frameworks of this country so it's only fitting he would be on the $10 bill. Ben Franklin because well I don't I have to tell you why Ben Franklin deserved his spot. This is a good summery: "leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass 'armonica'. He formed both the first public lending library in America and first fire department in Pennsylvania. He was an early proponent of colonial unity, and as a political writer and activist he supported the idea of an American nation. As a diplomat during the American Revolution he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence of the United States possible. " [4]

Once again his achievements are no where near Adams.

Thomas Paine: Once again he was never president and never served any major political office. He didn't even sign the Declaration of Independence.

"Even Thomas Jefferson himself was remarkable. He was the chief author of the Declaration of Independence, served as Secretary of State and as President of the United States, and doubled the size of America with the Louisiana Purchase."

Jefferson is generally credited with writing the document, but there's a whole lot more that went into it. In fact it was John Adams that got Jefferson to consider writing a draft to begin with. Jefferson did not volunteer to write the document, it was only after John Adams encouraged him to do so that he did. [5] Jefferson also used most of the Deceleration from the ideas of the Enlightenment. For instance the line "Certain unalienable rights....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not new ideas, in fact over 100 years earlier similar words had been spoken by John Locke: "life, health, liberty, or possessions." Even just a month before the draft was written a document containing very similar language had appeared in none other then Jefferson's home colony, Virginia. Written by George Madison is said the following: "enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." [6] To say Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is a grave ignorance of historical fact. Add that to the fact it was it was heavily edited by the committee of five which Adams served in. The declaration was being authored 200 years before the signing in the hearts and minds of millions of men.

It's interesting you "highlight" these points. First I'd like to note that it's hard to give credit to Jefferson merely because they had an opportunity to do something that others did not. Anyone who was the president at the time would've made the Louisiana purchase. Jefferson just merely was at the right place at the right time. I think 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! [7]

Jefferson hated debt:
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

But once he was in power he no problem defying his own principles.
---------------------
Points Dropped by my opponent:
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
G
K
L
So ALL OF THEM.
-----------------------
Conclusion: In the words of my opponent "My opponent has not reached his Burden of Proof." He has failed to prove why the men he selected should be placed on the nickel rather then Adams. "I have given sources and views of other great men who deserve to be on the nickel as much as John Adams does"
I gave sources too? And no you have not proved why they are more deserving then Adams seeing as you DROPPED ALL MY POINTS and had weak ones.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and the readers for the opportunity.

=======================

I have already provided a definition of the word "should" in my opening argument. I stated that "should" refers to a morally binding duty or obligation. As the first person in this debate to provide a definition for that word, my definition stands.

==========================

I shall now quote my opponent and leave a response:

"If you read my first round arguments you wound know I stated that he is not properly honored and I believe placing him on the nickel would fill this void. We honor people because of their life achievements and contributions; Adams had many of these."
My opponent has failed to provide evidence that Adams is, in fact, not honored properly. That is simply my opponent's opinion, and he has not provided any factual evidence as to why that is true. There are many people who honor Adams properly. Placing a man's face on a nickel is not necessarily honoring that man. Thomas Paine is not honored properly, so according to your standards, he should be on the nickel. My opponent's logic is faulty and fallacious. Thomas Jefferson had many life achievements. He served as Secretary of State, President, and chief writer of the Declaration of Independence. My opponent only brings an opinion about honoring Adams and does not back it up.

"I would now like to point out that if my opponent wishes to suggest one of our other founding fathers is more deserving then Adams, then burden of proof is now on him and not me. This is evidenced by his own words, 'I have the ability to convince the readers that another person besides Adams should replace Jefferson.' I will now show the disparity between Adams and the other founding fathers the my opponent has mentioned."
My opponent has failed to express a moral obligation in placing Adams on the nickel. He has not achieved the Burden of Proof. Since "should" refers to a morally binding duty, my opponent has not presented evidence as to why there is one. My opponent's references to Adams's achievements and "not being honored properly" are not proof as to why Adams should be on the nickel. There are plenty of other men and women who have many achievements and are not honored properly.

"Alexander Hamilton: Take out a $10 bill and look who's on it. I think it's safe to say Hamilton has been honored."
It does not matter about being honored! Others will disagree and say that Adams is honored. That is an opinion. My opponent has not provided real evidence as to why there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel, which is what the debate is really about.

"John Hancock: First of all I will remind you and voters that the burden of proof is now on you not not me. Hancock's achievements were not nearly as great as Adams'. Everything you mentioned Adams had done as well:

Signer of the Declaration of Independence. So was Adams.
He opposed the Stamp Act. Who didn't?
Elected (1766) to the legislature. So was Adams.
Governor of Massachusetts. Adam's was president of the United States of America."
However, Hancock was also president of the Continental Congress. This was when the delegates decided to rebel and proposed the Declaration of Independence. Without Hancock leading the Congress, we may not have rebelled against Britain and become independent. That is a huge achievement, much more worthy to put on the AMERICAN nickel than John Adams.

I would like to mention that my opponent keeps bringing up the fact that Adams is not honored properly, and that is why he should be on the nickel. However, that is only my opponent's opinion. Most of my friends believe Adams has been honored in a sufficient amount. My opponent has not provided any evidence as to why there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel, which is what the debate is about.

John Jay (not Joy): He was the first Chief Justice and symbolized the beginning of a true judiciary branch. His leadership helped establish the checks and balance system in America, which is quite significant.

"Once again his achievements are no where near Adams."
Again, this is opinionated. There are different views of what achievements are important to specific parts of the government or the economy. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase. Consequently, Americans were able to use more resources and became a much stronger nation. Once again, my opponent only uses opinion, tries to provide facts of Adams's achievements, but has failed to use proper logic.

"To say Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is a grave ignorance of historical fact."
I never said Jefferson wrote the entire Declaration of Independence. I stated that he was its chief author. My opponent calls me ignorant? Poor conduct. My opponent is ignorant in trying to prove a moral obligation with an opinion of Adams not being honored properly. He has failed to accomplish his Burden as of yet.

"It's interesting you "highlight" these points. First I'd like to note that it's hard to give credit to Jefferson merely because they had an opportunity to do something that others did not. Anyone who was the president at the time would've made the Louisiana purchase. Jefferson just merely was at the right place at the right time. I think 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! [7]"
This is very ignorant. Jefferson used intelligence, foreign policy, and great leadership in creating the Declaration of Independence. Your little rant is like me saying that anyone else could have done what Adams did, and just as well. The truth of the matter is, many of the other revolutionists possessed the traits that Adams did and achieved the achievements that Adams did. Earlier, my opponent stated that similarities between Hancock and Adams. Well, that just proves that there were many other great men that could go on the nickel instead of Adams.

My opponent then states that Jefferson hated debt and once he was in power, he had no problem defying his own principles. Jefferson states that he does not want to be in perpetual debt, which would essentially mean debt that would not be able to be paid off. He realized that some debt was needed to keep Americans working and achieve successes abroad. My opponent's argument for this was quite weak.

"Points Dropped by my opponent:
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
G
K
L
So ALL OF THEM."
My opponent tries to impress the audience with the list of achievements I ignored about Adams. These were not points, they were more of a description of what Adams did. However, my opponent has not achieved his Burden of Proof in showing that there is a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel. Resolution negated.

===========

It is obvious to tell my opponent has not reached his Burden. In his conclusion, he rants and displays poor conduct towards me. He has still failed to provide a moral obligation to place Adams on the nickel. He constantly states that Adams is not honored properly. This is merely an opinion and my opponent did not back it up. I provided other historical figures who just as easily deserved to be honored more properly and be placed on the nickel. Resolution negated.

Thank you for the challenge and the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 2
ilovgoogle

Pro

My opponent has made some wild and unsupported claims throughout his arguments. I think it's important that this be cleared up. He also has made some very hypocritical arguments which I wish to expose.

"he rants and displays poor conduct towards me"
What? You provide no evidence what so ever and make a personal attack upon me. Nowhere in my arguments have I made a personal attack against you. I have only attacked your arguments and your claims. If you claim I display poor conduct then you need to support it. I think making a personal attack upon me like that it is above all else poor conduct. Only once in your arguments do you claim I showed poor conduct, using faulty evidence might I add.

""To say Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence is a grave ignorance of historical fact."
I never said Jefferson wrote the entire Declaration of Independence. I stated that he was its chief author. My opponent calls me ignorant? Poor conduct. My opponent is ignorant in trying to prove a moral obligation with an opinion of Adams not being honored properly. He has failed to accomplish his Burden as of yet."

No where did I say claimed directly that you had said that Jefferson wrote the declaration in it's entirety. I called your CONTENTION of calling Jefferson the chief author ignorant. You didn't respond to my points about the significant lines in the declaration a being HEAVILY influenced and in some cases not even written by Jefferson. For instance the line: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Was not the original line. That can be found here: http://quotationsbook.com...

"My opponent has failed to provide evidence that Adams is, in fact, not honored properly."

He isn't! Adams has almost little to no recognition on a national scale in portion to his achievements. Jefferson is honored too much based on what he accomplished, which is why I think it is appropriate to replace Jefferson with Adams. If you think he is properly honored based on his achievements then I challenge you find an example of where he is honored appropriately. In fact you even said he was not honored properly in round 1: "I understand that John Adams is one of our great Founding Fathers. He may not be honored properly, " How does my opponent explain the own contradictions in his contentions?

"That is simply my opponent's opinion, and he has not provided any factual evidence as to why that is true."

Of course it's an opinion! Debates are based around opinions! What makes one opinion more validated then another one is evidence to support it. That's why my contentions were what Adam's achieved.

"Placing a man's face on a nickel is not necessarily honoring that man. "
Definition of honor: award: a tangible symbol signifying approval or distinction [1] Placing Adams on the most widely used currency in the world is a symbol of distinction.

"My opponent then states that Jefferson hated debt and once he was in power, he had no problem defying his own principles. Jefferson states that he does not want to be in perpetual debt, which would essentially mean debt that would not be able to be paid off. He realized that some debt was needed to keep Americans working and achieve successes abroad. My opponent's argument for this was quite weak."
We had a ton of debt when we made the Louisiana purchase! In fact we had just payed a large sum of money to declare war on Spain. [2] Regardless, Jefferson still had to use the National Bank created by Hamilton to make the purchase. Something he heavily argued against. Not to mention the fact he also made the purchase without first consulting congress about how to acquire new land and therefore expanding the power of the federal government; something he HATED!
Jefferson had a track record of saying one thing and doing another. In addition to the above he also owned slaves despite the fact he thought it was one of the sins of man. "Well done is better then well said. A good example is the best sermon." Adam's spoke out against slavery and did not own any.

"My opponent tries to impress the audience with the list of achievements I ignored about Adams. "

So did you. Just that you provided less achievements and therefore less of a reason for other founding fathers to be honored. See here: "John Jay (not Joy): He was the first Chief Justice and symbolized the beginning of a true judiciary branch. His leadership helped establish the checks and balance system in America, which is quite significant."
How have you differed from your own contention against me?

"Once again, my opponent only uses opinion, tries to provide facts of Adams's achievements, but has failed to use proper logic."
That statement is in of itself a contradiction. I think my opponent "has failed to use proper logic."

""Once again his achievements are no where near Adams."
Again, this is opinionated. There are different views of what achievements are important to specific parts of the government or the economy. Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase. Consequently, Americans were able to use more resources and became a much stronger nation. Once again, my opponent only uses opinion, tries to provide facts of Adams's achievements, but has failed to use proper logic."

If you would like an example of what poor conduct is, then you have found it. My quote was referring to Patric Henry which is why I put it in my contention WITH HIM, not Jefferson. You are misconstruing what I've said without context. I ask my opponent: why does he do so?

My opponent also seems dazed and confused based on his arguments about burden of proof. Since he has elected to prove that another another founding father is more worthy then Adams to replace Jefferson on the nickel, then the BoP shifts to him. He even acknowledge this in his CLARIFICATIONS!
"I have the ability to convince the readers that another person besides Adams should replace Jefferson."
Exactly YOU would now have to convince the readers, not me! BoP is on you!

"I have already provided a definition of the word "should" in my opening argument. I stated that "should" refers to a morally binding duty or obligation. As the first person in this debate to provide a definition for that word, my definition stands."
Nope. As stated in round 1: "I do not believe definitions are necessary as this is a pretty straightforward topic, but then again this debate.org so I reserve the right clarify the topic should I deem necessary." I will be exercising these reserved powers. "Should" in the topic refers to the definition I stated in round 2: "should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency" Consider it clarified.

Conclusion
"It does not matter about being honored!"
Yes, yes it does. Do think it's right to undervalue someone's contributions to society? We have an obligation to honor someone properly such as Adam's. As I mentioned before you agreed in round one that Adams is not properly honored. The nickel is a appropriate place to honor him because as I've proved, in proportion to his achievements Jefferson is over honored while Adam's is under honored.

My opponent now having the BoP must prove that one of our founding father deserves to be on the nickel more then Adams. This will be tough because he has not responded to any of my original contentions.
Points dropped by my opponent: I will quote from last round.
"0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
G
K
L
So ALL OF THEM."

My opponent has admitted that he ignored all my contentions . See here: ""My opponent tries to impress the audience with the list of achievements I ignored about Adams. " This also proves my opponent was ignorant. :)

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
I do try :)
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Way to exhibit good conduct.
Posted by ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
So many juicy ways to tear apart my opponent arguments. It's a shame I only had 8,000 character to do it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
ilovgooglestudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
ilovgooglestudentathletechristian8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60