The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
15 Points

It's time to reintroduce Red Indians into US National Parks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,389 times Debate No: 10757
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)




In terms of human habitation, the US National Parks are practically sterile. Of course, they never used to be like that - they used to be home to the Red Indians, but they were evicted when the parks were created.

Of course, nobody wants to see the development of ugly, modern homes and businesses within the boundaries of the National Parks but the Red Indians are native to the American countryside and are as much a part of the landscape as the buffalo, wolves and bears (1). Furthermore, Red Indians live in harmony with nature – they hunt only what they need to eat and their wigwams do no damage to the environment.

In addition, they would attract tourists to the National Parks who would no doubt be extremely keen to see real, live Red Indians in their natural habitat. I mean, who wouldn't want to see a tribe of redskins in their headdresses dancing around their totem pole, whooping and waving their tomahawks about? (2)

Finally, in terms of economic sustainability, the Indians can trade animal skins, tobacco and jars of cranberry sauce for what they call ‘thunder-sticks' and ‘firewater' or any other goods they require from ‘um pale faces'.

In conclusion, by reintroducing Red Indians into US National Parks, not only will we be restoring the natural fabric of the American wilderness but more tourists will be attracted to the parks as well.

In light of these undoubted benefits, I would urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.



I thank my opponent for beginning this debate. As my opponent has not offered any definitions to clarify the terms of this debate, I will do so now.
Red Indian: According to[1], a Red Indian is "a member of the race of people living in America when Europeans arrived." Note that this definition includes North and Latin American Indians, and is synonymous with the term Native American.
US National Parks: Parks run by the U.S. Federal Government.

Now I will build my own case and address my opponent's points.

Contention 1: Historically speaking, Native Americans have been hostile towards "um, pale faces"
The history of the relationship between Native Americans and European settlers is one of hostility and bloodshed. In the colonial days of North America, The Pequot War, King Phillip's War, The Pueblo Revolt, and The French and Indian Wars were all conflicts between Native Americans and white settlers that cost hundreds of lives on both sides[2]. These conflicts continued, as Native Americans were forced off of their land. In the mid- to late 1800's the U.S. government waged a series of campaigns against Indians in the Midwest[3]. What can we draw from all of this? If Native Americans were introduced into popular tourist attractions for white vacationers, we run the risk of violent conflict between the 2 groups. This problem could only be exacerbated if, as my opponent says, "they would attract tourists to the National Parks." Attracting tourists just sets up more opportunities for clash and conflict. This is not a risk we should run, and thus we ought to negate the resolution.

Contention 2: The resolution is irrational
"Red Indians" are not just North American Indians. Red Indians include Latin American Indians as well. If we affirmed this resolution, the U.S. would be required to not only rehabilitate all U.S. Indians into national parks but also every native American in Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, and every other country in the Americas[4]. The importation of these hundreds of tribes would not only be economically unfeasible but would be illegal as well and could only result in significant clashes between the U.S. and other American governments.
Because affirming this resolution could only result in increased violent conflicts between Native Americans and Caucasians and it would be economically unfeasible and probably illegal to implement, you must negate.

Moving to my opponent's points.
First, he claims that Indians are "native to the American countryside." But what he neglects to mention is that Indians live in all parts of the American countryside, in a wide variety of biomes and environs from desert to temperate forest. Displacing native Americans from their natural homes to national parks would inevitably result in a number of native Americans being placed in an unnatural environment. This is not fair to them.
As to my opponent's second contention, it has effectively been shown to support the con argument of increased violence between Native Americans and Caucasians. As such, his second argument is actually in favor of the con.
Finally, my opponent claims that they could trade "animal skins, tobacco, and jars of cranberry sauce" for any goods they need. However, there are some major flaws to this argument. 1) By hunting park species native Americans would be breaking the law and be subject to the consequent penalties. 2) Tobacco cannot be grown in many areas of the U.S. 3) In order to produce jars of cranberry sauce, Indians would require the knowledge and capability to make glass jars and metal caps, as well as optimal growing environments for cranberries, which cannot be grown in many areas of the U.S.
Thus, my opponents case falls because all of his contentions either truly support the con or would treat Native Americans unfairly. In light of all this, I urge a negative vote.

Debate Round No. 1


With many thanks to ZKnecht for accepting this debate, I would like to address his first contention that to allow people of European descent to come into contact with Red Indians would be to risk reigniting ancient conflicts.

Whilst it is true that there were some minor local difficulties between the Indians and the white folks, my opponent ignore the fact that most European settlers were peaceful, everyday people who lived quiet, ordinary lives. After all, schoolboys don't play Shopkeepers and Indians or Bank Clerks and Indians do they? No, it's always Cowboys and Indians, isn't it? Yes, it's the cowboys who cause all the trouble so all we need to do to prevent inter-ethnic violence erupting in the National Parks is to put signs up at the entrances reading: "NO COWBOYS". There! Problem solved.

Regarding my opponent's second contention that importing Red Indians from all over the Americas would be untenable, I agree. My suggestion is merely to introduce sustainable breeding populations into the parks and allow them to grow in numbers organically, according to the amount of natural resources available to sustain them. This will involve hunting wild animals which, as my opponent pointed out, would normally be considered illegal but the Indians could do what wealthy country landowners do and call hunting "wildlife management" instead and get round the law that way.

Finally, it is true that the Red Indians may not be able to grow tobacco or cranberries in every park in the US due to regional climatic differences but this need not prevent them from trading in these products. They could buy in cheap cigarettes from China and jars of cranberry sauce from Costco and just repackage them, selling them on as "Big Chief Sitting Bull's Filter-Tipped Prairie Cigarettes" or "Little Craw Squaw's Genuine Wigwam-Made Cranberry Sauce – heap big tasty with um turkey" .

Think about this. If my plan is enacted, the next time you visit a National Park, you could be chased by Red Indian warriors on horseback who are all shooting arrows at your car! How much fun would that be? A lot more fun that looking some dusty old photographs in the visitors center, that's for sure!

So come on folks - Vote Pro – you know it makes sense.

Thank you.


We cannot overlook the danger posed by allowing Red Indians and Europeans to freely interact with one another. My opponent attempts to downplay this, saying that it was only cowboys that caused all of the problems with the Indians. However, in doing so he neglects decades of wars fought between the very government of the United States and the indigenous peoples thereof. The fact of the matter is, there has been too much enmity between these two races to risk antagonizing them further.

In addition to this major risk, we have to address the significant flaws in my opponent's argument.

First, we must look again to my refutation of his first argument. Indians come from all parts of the country, from varying environments and even drastically different lifestyles. Displacing them from their native homelands and setting them up in national parks that may or may not bear any resemblance to what they are used to would set them at odds with their surroundings, rather then allowing them to live in harmony.

My opponent's point about drawing tourism to parks, while valid, only serves to reinforce my own case, as increased contact with each other would only result in increased chances for outbreaks of violence.

Finally, his economic sustainability point really isn't realistic. I already pointed out that the goods he suggest Indians produce would not be able to be produced in many areas of the U.S. He countered with the assertion that they could simply buy cigarettes and cranberry sauce from stores and repackage them. To this I have several issues to raise. For one thing, repackaging and selling under a different label is illegal. Indians could be prosecuted for doing so. For another, how exactly would Indians get the money to buy these products, hmm?

Ultimately, what we have to ask is whether or not these Indians would be better off left alone. The way things stand today, Indians lead successful lives on their reservations. To quote The Gorillaz, they are "innocent of the litany of excess and violence" that plagues the world around them. They are able to support themselves on the meager revenue gained from gambling institutions and the sale of traditional crafts.
Transplanting them from their homelands to National Parks would be unfair to them, and dangerous for all parties involved. Except Hispanics. I don't think they have anything against Hispanics.

If we weigh the best interests of the Native Americans and of ourselves, we can only come to the conclusion that this resolution must be negated.

And remember, a vote for the Con is a vote for Sarah Palin jokes. Heh heh heh...pitbulls.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mattrodstrom 8 years ago
lol, people love to idealize native americans.

Eggles is funny b/c he's offensive in a manner that suggests complete ignorance of that fact.

The most offensive part about his argument here is that he assumes that those "Reds" would actually blend into the environment as if they were part of the landscape, living in harmony with nature, and doing natural indian stuff.

They're people, just like everyone else, and they'd want those steel tomahawks just like they did back in the day, and would probably trade away a sustainable 'natural' lifestyle to get them as did many indians turned trappers back in the day.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
I would seriously doubt that the habitat remains natural enough to maintain humans with no outside help.
Posted by andre 8 years ago
would they want to? I think many have been far too integrated into modern society. but i think that if I were a Native American, I would certainly consider that option.
Posted by EHS_Debate 8 years ago
lol XD
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aesius 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cult-logic 8 years ago
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:15 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
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 Koopin 8 years ago
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:07