The Washington Redskins should change their team name
-- "Should" implies some sort of obligation, legal, practical, or ethical (or all)
-- BOP in this debate is shared; Pro must show that there is some sort of obligation for the Redskins to change their name, and Con must show that there is not.
For anyone who wants some general background info on the issue at hand: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Please note that the voter elo limit is 3000.
Good luck, Kbub :D
I look forward to an interesting debate!
Thanks UchihaMadara for the invitation to this debate! I am honored to accept this debate challenge. Best of luck!
Thanks for accepting, Kbub!
I will be using this round to present four independently functioning reasons for why there is no obligation for the Washington Redskins to change their team's name.
C1) Taking offense does not mandate change
Obviously, the primary reason why this whole issue is even controversial is because there is a group of people who are offended by the use of the term "redskins"; if no one was offended, it would be a non-issue. However, I will argue that people taking offense to something does not necessarily obligate that something to change. Because the United States grants its citizens personal liberty and the freedom of expression, we must presuppose that all actions are permissible and only decide otherwise if valid reason is given. The question, then, is about whether or not there is really sufficient reason to limit the liberties of the Washington Redskins. I will argue that a group of people taking offense does not meet that criteria.
Firstly, taking offense is inherently irrational-- it is the act of imposing a negative emotion upon yourself in response to what you have been taught to view as inappropriate or unacceptable. To suggest that we are somehow obligated to act because of others engaging in such a behavior is simply unfair; people do not have the right not to be offended. If it is an issue of a group's capability to pursue happiness being compromised, then it is a different issue, but in the case of the Washington Redskins controversy, it is merely a group of people choosing to take offense at something which they could just as easily choose to ignore. Almost every element of modern society has at least a few individuals who are personally opposed to it; to attempt to remove every single element of society which people are offended by would result in absurd consequences.
There are a large number of creationists who are offended by evolution being taught as a scientific theory in schools, as well as many puritan Christians who wish to censor the media for anything and everything which is supposedly 'impure' (e.g. sexual content, violence, and explicit language), and feminists who wish to stop everyone from saying anything which even hints at the objective differences between the two genders. Some of these groups are even larger than the population of native Americans who are offended by the term 'redskins', yet there are very few among the 'majority' in any of these cases who think it would be reasonable to obligate change in response. What is so special about the Native Americans who are opposed to the Redskins' name? There doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer.
C2) Originalism and contextual meanings
"Suppose you see the word "HELP" inscribed on the sidewalk in front of an office building. It could immediately be asked, what does it mean? You consider the scenario and come up with all sorts of plausible answers. Perhaps the author was a kid having some fun while waiting for the cement to dry. Or perhaps, you speculate, the author was a criminal attempting to send their partner a secret message. Perhaps "HELP" is an initialism of some sort. Whatever the case, you are able to come up with all sorts of theories to explain the word's meaning... There is, however, an important point to notice about how we ascribe meaning to the word: the intention of the person who put the word there in the first place. If the word was written by a kid having some fun, the word obviously has a very different meaning than if it were written as a secret code between two criminals. The obvious conclusion here is that the intention behind the production of any text is somehow intimately related to that text's meaning.
"To further emphasize this point, consider the following possibility: you discover that the word "HELP" was not the result of any human affairs. Rather, suppose by chance a stream of water coming from a leaky pipe somehow etched the word into the sidewalk. It turns out that there was no intention whatsoever behind the word's existence. With this knowledge in mind, it becomes impossible to interpret the word's meaning because it no longer communicates anything. For communication to occur, some message, not all messages, must be conveyed. Without an intention behind the word's production, we would no longer be able to identify a particular message. We could no longer rightfully say the word means this or that... [a word] does not mean anything that interpreters would like to to mean. It has a specific meaning determined by the message it was intended to communicate. " .
The above is a brief justification of originalism-- "the principle or belief that the original intent of an author should be adhered to in later interpretations of a work." [Google dictionary]. It applies to words and phrases just as much as it applies to works of literature. Due to the nature of communication, it must be the communicator who determines what meaning should be assigned to their words; the listeners cannot simply decide that a word means whatever they would like it to mean. And they certainly cannot alter the intended meaning, take offense to their newly-assigned meaning, and then demand that the communicator change in order to placate them.
In the case of the Washington Redskins controversy, the people on the Con side (i.e. the team and its fans) insist that there is absolutely no harm meant with the use of the term redskins; there is no racist intent on their part whatsoever: "'Our franchise has a great history, tradition and legacy representing our proud alumni and literally tens of millions of loyal fans worldwide... We are proud of our team and the passion of our loyal fans. Our fans sing 'Hail to the Redskins' in celebration at every Redskins game. They speak proudly of 'Redskins Nation' in honor of a sports team they love," . "I can't remember exactly when it struck me that the name "Redskins" had anything to do with race or skin color... the reality is that... very few people who say the word "Redskins," as it pertains to football, have conscious racist intent." .
Words do change in meaning over time as well as depending on context; the term 'redskins' is no longer something to be associated with racism, as its most common usage now has a positive/neutral connotation. For my opponent to deny that words change over time would actually be quite harmful to his case, as I will explain next round if he does choose to deny it.
This argument is quite simple: there are more people who support keeping the name than not, and thus, the name should not be changed. It is simply a matter of upholding democracy and maximizing net utility. There are a number of surveys showing this to be true, from the Washington Post reporting that 71% of Americans support the Con side , to the ESPN reporting that number as being 79% . But what about the Native Americans specifically? Even among them, "redskin" is far from being universally accepted as a racial slur; many find the entire controversy to be ridiculous, with the majority of opposition to the name coming from advocacy groups which supposedly represent the views of entire tribes.
"'I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,' says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. 'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it." .
"'Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions... In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.' Neither does Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux who lives on the Spirit Lake reservation in North Dakota. 'It more or less shows that they approve of our history,' she said. North Dakota was the scene of a similar controversy over the state university’s Fighting Sioux nickname. It was decisively scrapped in a 2012 statewide vote — after the Spirit Lake reservation voted in 2010 to keep it." .
C4) Furthering racist sentiments
I don't have enough space to elucidate this argument as fully as I'd like to, but the basic idea is that by creating controversy over the issue and attempting to get the name changed, racism is only being furthered in society. Since there were never really any racist sentiments associated with the team's use of the name, all the fuss over it is only serving to create a problem where there was none to begin with, which is blatantly counter-productive.
In conclusion, I have provided four independent reasons for why it cannot be said that the Washington Redskins are obligated to change their name. The resolution is negated.
I look forward to your response, Kbub :)
"dated or offensive: An American Indian." (1)
"Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. A North American Indian."
"an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American"
"noun dated offensive: an American Indian."
Con wrote that there can be "no semantics" in this debate (R1), which means that the most standard use a word must be accepted. Con and I are obligated to accept that "Redskin" is offensive per the standard definitions.
"...cultural genocide implies the process of undermining, suppressing, and ultimately eliminating, native cultures." (4)
Ethical Obligations to change the name:
Obligation #1 Hate slur
1. The term was featured on a standard hate slur database (5), and was called "offensive" or "taboo," by the 3 dictionaries above.
2. Obviously, sports teams should not name their teams ethnic slurs. Washington is obligated to change their name for this reason. The San Francisco "N-----s" would be messed up.
Obligation #2: Tribal opinion
The National Congress of American Indians, the largest group representing American and Alaskan Indians (over 1.2 million Native Americans enrolled) are staunchly opposed to the name of the Washington team. (6, 7, 8)
So are the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida, Seminole, and Osage tribes (6, 9).
Con quoted two persons, as if they represented all of the 500 American Indian tribes. In contrast, the opinions of 5 tribes, as well as the representation of 1.2 million Native Americas, are against the name. Clearly Washington's team should change its name.
Obligation #3: Ask permission!
The Washington team ought to acquire the permission of the groups they are representing before they use their name. If they are representing the Sioux, they should have the Sioux's permission. However, they are representing every tribe, and are therefore required to acquire every tribe's permission.
So far, Washington's football team has **never** requested permission from a tribe to use the name. Until they do so, they are obligated to change their name in the meantime.
Even if Con proves that the "Red*kins" isn't offensive to any tribe (ha), the Washington team is still obligated to ask permission before taking the name.
Obligation #4 Racist stereotypes
Washington's team name unfortunately promotes racist stereotypes.
1. Savage Warrior: Franchise team names are chosen in football *not* to honor a people"s heritage, but emphasize their ferocity (Lions, Raiders, Bears, etc). In the case of "Redskins," this refers back to the savage warrior.
2. All the same: All of the 500 Native American tribes have unique cultures. By trying to represent a "Redskin," the Washington team contributes to the perception that Native Americans are all alike.
Obligation #5 Redface/costumed fans
We know that wearing blackface is wrong. We know that disrespecting other cultures is wrong. We know that characterizing ethnic groups as violent is wrong. Why does Washington choose a name that would encourage their fans to dress in redface?
a. The headdress is regarded as a sacred token for great accomplishments of tribal warriors. Most in those select tribes do not consider themselves worthy to wear the headdress. And yet, Washington fans seem to have no problems wearing headdresses, drinking with headdress, or dressing sexually with headdress. (10, 11) This is basically like peeing into a Catholic Communion cup.
b. The practice is not only *very* disrespectful but also paints a distorted picture of Native Americans, since most don't wear headdresses.
2. Harmful and disrespectful stereotypes
Fans who go to football games often drink, act rowdy, or even behave violently. This may be somewhat acceptable in certain circumstances; however, when they are in redface they are perpetuating the stereotype that Native Americans have these negative traits (especially those associated with alcohol).
Obligation #6 Job discrimination
Obviously, the perpetuation of negative racial stereotypes (violent, alcoholic, wild, etc.) leads to discrimination in the workplace, as evidenced by the higher unemployment rate of tribal persons compared to white persons (12, 13). The Washington team has an obligation to minimize its contribution to this injustice.
Obligation #7 Cultural Genocide
Con seems to think that misrepresenting Native Americans" history (such as by misrepresenting their clothes, behaviors, and tribal distinctiveness) is no big deal. However, for many Native Americans, heritage was a matter of life and death.
In the 1930s 100,000 Native Americans were forced into off-reservation boarding schools, where their culture was forced out of them. Worse: "Torture was used to punish native language use; children were involuntarily sterilized and died of disease, beating, poisoning, hanging, starvation, strangulation, and medical experimentation." (14)
Brave children fought for their heritage and were killed or beaten. Those who survived lost the use of their language and culture (14). Today, many tribes struggle to retain their dignity, the same dignity that is undermined when Non-natives play "Redskins."
Much of the culture of these tribes has been lost, and the media doesn't help, replacing Native American's actual cultures with a generic Hollywood invention (the "redskin"). Many more American Indian children are in foster care than other races (14). Native representations on television (such as Washington games) may be their only source of their understanding of Native cultures growing up (14). Clearly, Washington's team should *stop* their contributing to this cultural genocide by stopping their perpetuating Hollywood stereotypes.
Obligation #8: Memorabilia sales
Washington will soon be losing almost all of their funds from memorabilia, because their trademark has been revoked.
Most of Con's contentions are completely off-topic. Nevertheless, I will go through each of them point-by-point and show *exactly* why they fail to help Con's case, and also why most of them help my own case.
No one is limiting the liberty of the Washington team. My position is merely to advocate what the Washington *should* do, and not what it must do.
"Taking Offense Doesn't Mandate Change"
This is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Washington should change its name.
Con called the Native American tribes "irrational" for being offended that Washington's team has an ethnic hate slur for their name.
1. Besides being untopical, Con has no right to tell Native Americans how to feel about the ethnic slurs that target them.
2. Using an ethnic slur for a team name is more irrational than being offended, and only the former is the focus of the debate. *Turn!* (Obligation #9)
3. Since "redskin" was historically used to refer to the scalp of a Native American when Europeans would hunt them, exchanging their "red-skin" for cash (15), I'd say there are sufficient justifications for taking offense at the word's casual use! *Turn!* (Obligation #10)
1. Originalism works for the word "help," but that is very, *very* far from showing it works for all words.
2. Con offers *no* evidence that Originalism is relevant to this debate.
3. There are lots of people using the "R-word," and there is no way to find out all of their intentions.
1. The team name is being questioned, not the owners. (Untopical)
2. We can't know for sure the intentions of the fans, owners, or players. Judging by an almost comedic history of racism, though, we can guess that the original intentions were probably racist. *Turn!* (Obligation #11)
a. Washington's team was the last to allow segregation in the NFL (16)
b. Washington had cheerleaders dressed as "sexy squaws" perform rain-dances and *threaten to scalp* the opposing team (the original "Hail to the Redskins") (17, 18).
1. Con has showed no significant harm for people who want to keep the name.
2. ESPN's two polls (both are ESPN's) were inaccurate for many reasons, including the fact that they offered no alternative names for people to compare to.
3. The "R-word" does not necessarily need to be changed permanently. They would at least need to get the tribes" permission first.
4. Con gives no reason why Washington is obliged to please their fans.
1. From the perspective of deontology (probably more relevant to the debate)-evaluating ethics in terms of moral actions instead of results-I have shown many moral and practical obligations for Washington to change its name.
2. However, with regard to utilitarianism I am even still clearly winning overall. I have shown many benefits for changing the name and many harms for not changing it.
This debate is not on the Fighting Sioux.
1. Con gives exactly zero reasons why Washington's changing its name causes racism.
2. If protesting Washington is a waste of time, then Washington should change the name in order to send protesters home. *Turn!* (Obligation #12)
Although Con's round was well-written, he failed to demonstrate any impacts. I only needed to show one obligation for Washington to change its team name in order to win this debate, but I've shown *12*. I have met and surpassed my Burden of Proof 12 times over.
For all these reasons, please vote Pro!
Pro opens by offering a case for why I must accept that the term "redskin" is inherently offensive. While clever, this tactic simply doesn't work out. The "no semantics" rule does not necessarily require that we accept the dictionary definitions as absolute; Pro has made that assumption on his own. As the instigator of the debate, I can say that the rule was only meant to avoid blatant abuses of definitions to make completely off-topic cases. My denial of "redskin" being inherently offensive does not fit this description. However, if I were to make the case that "Washington Redskins" refers to a pile of red-dyed pelts in the state of Washington, *that* would be disallowed. The "no semantics" rule is not meant to unnecessarily restrict which arguments can be made; it is meant to avoid having the debate go off the rails. This is a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and thus Pro's semantics case should be rejected.
== NEG CASE ==
C1) Taking offense does not mandate change
1. The point of mentioning "liberty" was simply to set the framework for this contention: we must presume all actions to be permissible unless given sufficient reason to believe otherwise. I argued that since a group of people taking offense does not fulfill this criteria, there is no reason for us not to consider the Washington Redskins' name to be permissible. Pro has merely dismissed my argument as "irrelevant", despite that clearly not being the case... my argument has a clear impact on the resolution.
2. Pro's responses to my premise of offense being irrational seem to completely miss the point, ranging from "you can't say that!" to "I still think taking offense is rational!". Pro has not successfully contested that 'offense' is a self-imposed emotion (so therefore others should not be held responsible for preventing it) or shown that the name is having a significant effect on the natives Americans' ability to pursue happiness.
C2) Originalism and contextual meanings
1. The "HELP" example was merely meant to demonstrate the concept of originalism-- the meaning of a word should be decided by the communicator, rather than the interpreters; words do not have absolute definitions. Pro's assertion that originalism isn't relevant to the debate is ridiculous; the definition of the term "redskin" is *very* central to the debate, and that is exactly what originalism is concerned with.
2. I have provided evidence from the team's management and the fans themselves that the Washington Redskins as a group do *not* use the term as a racial slur, but instead regard the name as a positive symbol of their team spirit and pride. Since Pro has declined to actually contest originalism as a philosophy, we can presume that its implications hold true-- the term "redskin" is not actually an ethnic slur in this case, and Pro's entire case thus falls apart.
3. Pro tries to make the claim that the Washington Redskins *do* have racist intentions in their use of the word, but none of his attempts actually prove this. His first is nothing but his unsupported opinion that the "original intentions were probably racist". His second, regarding delayed desegregation, has nothing to do with how the term "redskins" is being used today. His third is not only based on the faulty assumption that the noted activities represented racist sentiments, but it also is irrelevant because his own source notes that these activities are no longer practiced.
1. Pro starts off by claiming that I have not showed significant harm for the people who want to keep the name. I can say the same for him; he has not shown that the offended native Americans (NA's) suffer any harm (other than being offended) from the team keeping its name. And, In fact, many of the fans *have* demonstrated that they would be negatively effected by the team changing its name, becoming extremely upset to the point of tears upon hearing the results of the Redskins trademark ruling . To them, the Redskins name represents an object of personal pride and nostalgia. Irrational? Of course. But so is the NA's taking offense to the name.
2. Pro goes on to assert that ESPN's two polls are inaccurate, but he never says why; the only specific reason he points out is that "they offered no alternative names for people to compare to," but he never explains why this is even a "flaw", much less why it is enough of a reason to reject the poll's findings entirely.
3. My "Fighting Sioux" example serves as a case study of sorts, suggesting that Native Americans generally do not care about their names being used in professional sports nearly as much as Pro or various advocacy groups would like to believe.
4. Pro finishes off by making a case for a deontological system of morality, with the categorical imperative seemingly being that the use of historical ethnic slurs is impermissible; however, simply stating a categorical imperative is not enough-- Pro must also *justify* it, which he has not even attempted to do. On that basis, his deontological system should be rejected.
*No space for C4*
== AFF CASE ==
O1) Hate Slur
Firstly, I can cross-apply C2 to show that the term "redskin", as used by the team, should not be considered an ethnic slur, as they use the term with a radically different (positive) connotation. My sources from C3 show that even many NA's don't regard it as an ethnic slur. Pro seems to believe that historical meanings have paramount significance in determining the modern usage of words; if that is the case, then we should go *all* the way back to a word's origin to decide its modern definition. Let's see what this implies with the term "redskin":
"In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign. Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on." .
Even if we reject originalism and accept my opponent's method of determining words' meanings, we reach the conclusion that the term "redskin" is actually not a "hate slur". Also, Pro never justifies why sports teams should "obviously not name their teams ethnic slurs"; my C1 indicates otherwise.
O2) Tribal Opinion
Firstly, let's note that I can cross-apply both C1 and C3-- the team has no obligation to avoid offending people, and the 1.2 million natives who are supposedly offended by the name make up only 0.4% of the US population (as opposed to the 71% who support the name). Pro claims that the NCAI represents 1.2 million natives, but just as the political affiliation of the US president does not reflect the affiliations of even the vast majority of citizens, it is highly unlikely that every single one of those 1.2 million natives is "staunchly opposed" to the name. There IS substantial support for the Redskins name from NA's .
O3) Ask Permission!
First of all, this is not a reason to change the Redskins name; it is a suggestion on how the Redskins can change to become "more acceptable". Reject this contention because it does not affirm the resolution. Aside from that, it is an absurd idea; Pro seems to believe that we should treat the name “redskins” as the creative property of NA's and ask for every single individual’s permission before using it. However, it can’t be treated as their creative property for the obvious reason that they did not create it, nor did they formally inherit it from anyone who did. This may be the case for specific tribes who have been officially registered under their names, but it simply doesn’t apply to such general terms. Just as white people as a whole do not own the term “Caucasian”, and just as homosexuals do not own the term “queer”, NA's do not own the term “redskin”. Just because they are occasionally referred to as such does not suddenly mean that the term has become their property and can no longer be used publicly without their permission.
O4) Racist Stereotypes
This argument should be rejected because 1) Pro provides no reason for us to believe that term “redskin” represents a specific, negative NA stereotype, and 2) Pro fails to demonstrate that the team merely having that name directly leads to the propagation of that stereotype. Also, cross-apply C2.
O5) Redface/Costumed Fans
Cross-apply C1 to reject Pro’s bare assertion that “disrespecting other cultures" is inherently wrong, and cross-apply C2 to show that the lack of intended disrespect on the part of Redskins fans renders this contention mitigated. Furthermore, note that it is highly unlikely that many of the fans’ customs and traditions noted by Pro are going to go away just by changing the team’s name, thus erasing this contention's impact. Pro’s comparisons of redface to blackface are asinine because redface simply does not have the history of racial discrimination behind it that blackface does . Lastly, Pro does not show that any of the behaviors of Redskins fans while costumed have *actually* resulted in people’s opinions of natives being significantly reduced (i.e. no demonstrable harms).
O6) Job Discrimination
This relies on the bare assertion from O5 that the WA Redskins actually project a negative image of NA's. It is also correlation/causation fallacy-- high unemployment rates among NA's is caused by completely independent economic factors .
O7) Cultural Genocide
Cross-apply rebuttal to O5.
O8) Memorabilia Sales
Cross-apply rebuttal to O5.
This ad is paid for by the Oneida Nation.
Con broke the rules of this debate by deliberately linking to an external source with extra debate space, adding nearly 1,000 illegal characters of text and sources. Con thus forfeits the debate.
Con and I have a SHARED BoP, which means that there is no default winner.
Con says in (C1) that unless Pro proves beyond a doubt that Washington has an obligation to change their name, Con wins by default. However, Con clear describes a debate where Pro has the *full* BoP.
Shared BoP is like a see-saw. For each position (in this case each “obligation”), the scales are neutral—Con and Pro each have 50% chance of being right. During the debate, we are each trying to tip the scales in our favor.
Thus, in this debate, Con needs to show that it is *more likely* that Washington has *no* obligation to change its name.
Likewise, Pro needs to show that it is *more likely* that Washington has an obligation to change their name.
In EVERY DICTIONARY I could find, “Red*kins” was considered offensive, taboo, or a hateful slur. We must accept the word “Redskin” is currently offensive. Con does not contest my definitions.
Why not Washington “Redtails” (honoring a ground of African-American pilots)(19), or the “Oorang Indians” (which actually honors a famous team of American Indian football players)(20)?
Obligation #1 Hate Slur
1. The current use of the word as an ethnic slur is supported by every dictionary and hate database I could find. Furthermore, the indirect testimony of millions of Native Americans, the United States patent office, and the direct input of many tribes supports this fact.
2. The historical use was to refer to the bloody corpse of a Native American scalp sold for money. Con completely missed the point when he cited an earlier benign use of the R-word. The N-word also has a benign original use—it was simply Latin for “black” (24). However, there were other relevant momement in history that made the N-word bad, just like the R-word.
3. Con wanted to know if racial slurs have negative effects. Sure! (21, 22, 23)
a. Merely overhearing a racial slur lowers one’s opinion of the recipient (times millions for Washington fans concerning Native Americans).
c. Can cause physiological and psychological injuries, including:
*High blood pressure
*Thoughts of suicide
d. Can cause POC to leave their home or job to avoid recurring racial slur
e. “… [racial slurs] lay the groundwork for both individual and state-sponsored violence against that group”
f. Causes user to assume negative stereotypes about group
All of these are effects of merely using, receiving, or overhearing a racial slur, completely apart from intent. I’ve proven either a dozen obligations, or one big one. Either way, Pro wins.
Obligation #2: Tribal Opinion
Are the opinions of Native American tribes less valuable because they are fewer in number? I say no. In fact, the fact that 300 million people are insulting the dignity of a racial minority makes things far worse.
Tribes’ opinions are what is relevant in this debate, because they are the ones at risk of significant harm.
Lastly, Con linked to a story of a single high school supporting the Washington team’s name. Really, Con? One high school?
I will later show how Con has no real evidence of a “majority opinion.”
For these reasons, please vote Pro.
Obligation #3: Ask permission!
1. If the Washington team name can be changed to make it more acceptable, then Washington has an obligation to do so, even if only a small one.
2. Con seems to confuse legal obligation with moral obligation.
3. If you are going to use your team to represent another’s identity, the least you can do is ask their permission first. If you are going to name your team the “Bill Gates,” you are morally obligated to ask him first, or else risk slander.
Using a harmful ethnic slur to refer to an ethnicity and racist costumes constitutes slander. The immorality of Washington’s name is multiplied by millions, for each fan immorally stealing and slandering the identity of a race.
Obligation #4: Racist stereotypes
I gave two links to racism, both of which Con failed to refute.
1. Having a team name dedicated to an entire race is bound to make it seem like they are all alike. In fact, there is no way to depict the well over 500 tribes of Native Americans as a cohesive whole.
2. Team names are meant to characterize the group as ferocious. Categorizing Native Americans as ferocious is racist, and a stereotype that many Native Americans have worked for hundreds of years to undo.
Perpetuating racism is highly unethical. For this reason, please vote Pro.
Obligation #5: Racist Outfits
1. I have clearly shown that making “Red*kin” the team name causes people to wear “stereotypical Native American” clothing, including headdresses. I have shown that that is disrespectful to that culture and historically inaccurate (link to #7). And it is indeed unethical to insult another culture, especially when they do not deserve it.
2. Furthermore, according to certain tribes’ mores, one is *ethically obliged* not to wear headdresses unless earned. Simply because this is not a European ethical obligation does not make it less of an ethical obligation.
3. Fans dress up as their team symbol. If the Washington team no longer represents the “Red*kins,” far fewer fans will dress up as that.
4. Fans unintentionally(?) depict Native Americans as savage and alcoholic, which is quite racist. Unsurprisingly there have been no studies on Washington’s football team and racism, but using logic we can justifiably assume a causal role.
5. Washington lost its patent, which mean they have no control over the merchandise fans wear. Thus, *tens of thousands* more will likely be in redface, unless the name changes.
For all these reasons vote Pro.
Obligation #6: Job Discrimination
Causing job discrimination is a *major* ethical violation. Con shouldn't have dropped this obligation.
Obviously, Pro wins this point/debate.
Obligation #7: Cultural Genocide
Cultural genocide is worthy of more than 5-words! I have shown exactly why Native American children are even willing to die for their culture to be preserved. I have shown exactly why Washington’s team is committing cultural genocide. It's not a mere matter of “being offended”--the survival of cultures are on the line.
Because culture was more important than life to many Native Americans, Washington has a *colossal* obligation to avoid cultural genocide. Con entirely dropped this point. Pro has thus *clearly* won the debate.
Obligation #8: Loss of memorabilia.
Con’s O5 makes no sense in this context. I’m saying that changing the name is a good, practical business decision because the team is about to lose most of it’s money. Don’t let Con pick this point back up. Please vote Pro.
Obligation #9: Using an ethnic slur as a name is irrational.
O#10: Justified offense
The term carries the connotations of being merely an enemy who is better dead. “Getting offended” is justified in this case.
O#11: The original intention of the owner’s were racist.
O #12: Changing the name will allow protesters to focus on improving other things, including health care, education, and access to electricity.
1.Cross apply “BoP” for an analysis of why Con’s analysis of BoP is incorrect.
2.There are many reasons to stand up against bullies. It is quite possible to bully with words. If someone is being verbally abusive, we do not blame the one getting offended. We blame the one offending. That is obvious.
Native Americans aren’t getting offending on a whim. My entire case shows why it is justified.
Even if Native Americans aren’t justified, their feelings and input remain the same. My entire case is unchanged. Cross apply my whole case.
“Originalism” is the most pointless contention ever.
1.Con’s main source is an online debate, which is hardly unbiased.
2.Originalism generally applies to law, and maybe literature. It does not apply here.
3.In this case, who would be the “author”? The first person to use the R-word? The #1 fan? There is no way to apply this.
4.There is no way to apply originalism here, because we cannot read peoples’ minds to find their intentions.
5.Con gives no reason why originalism is better than any other way of understanding language.
6.Even if it is the best interpretation of a word, *so what*? Even if the protestors are irrational, *so what*? My entire case *still* works to show why the name should be changed.
Originalism is irrelevant on many levels.
1.When did Con care about people being upset?
2.How many fans were in tears? One?
3.ESPN’s polls did not take into account that people might like an alternative to “Red*kins” better. Also, ESPN’s polls suffered from “selection bias.” People would likely hang up unless they were big fans of football. Thus, it is likely that only football fans answered the poll, skewing the results.
4.”Fighting Sioux” is still irrelevant.
5.I *have* justified my ethics. I am winning Deontology AND Utilitarianism.
I will start off by addressing a few miscellaneous issues...
Broken Rules: Pro broke the rules of this debate by deliberately linking a video which likely had thousands of characters worth of words in it supporting his case. This is clearly an illegal violation of the character limit and Pro thus forfeits the debate. Oh, wait, there was never any rule stating that the character limit must be followed so strictly... please disregard both my own and Pro's supposed "violations". We meant no harm in breaking imaginary rules to improve the overall quality of the debate.
BOP: I agree that we do have a shared burden of proof for the debate as a whole. In C1, I was simply making the argument that from an objective ethical standpoint, there is nothing about "offending people" that would render it immoral. Naturally, Pro has to refute this argument in order to mitigate it, and he has not successfully done so. Perhaps I misused the term "BOP", but that has no bearing on the soundness of C1.
Definitions: Pro's case here relies on the assumption that we are required to hold dictionary definitions as absolute. I have shown that this is not the case. Pro's semantics case should be rejected.
Alternatives: Pro presents alternative team names, but never explains why the team is *obligated* to adopt them.
== NEG CASE ==
C1) Taking Offense
We can cross-apply my response to "BoP" to reject Pro's BOP analysis... it is hardly a matter of BOP at all. It is a matter of Pro failing to actually rebut my argument, which is the most basic burden of any debater. He instead continues to stick with the bare assertion that offense mandates change. He has only said "it's obvious", whereas as I have fully substantiated by argument. We need to look no further than DDO to see that there is no consensus on whether the offender or the offended is to blame, and thus we can safely reject Pro's rebuttal [http://www.debate.org...]. Almost all of Pro's case relies on the premise that people have an obligation not to offend others. This argument refutes that premise, and thus serves to negate the resolution all on its own.
1) The source of my philosophical justification of originalism is irrelevant as long as the actual justification is sound. 2) The fact that originalism is generally not applied to word definitions in general is irrelevant as long as the application itself is sound. 3) In this case, the "author" would be the Redskins team and fanbase as a whole. 4) We cannot read their minds, but I have provided evidence that the team and fans only associate a positive connotation with the word, whereas Pro has only provided inconclusive speculation to the contrary. 5) I spent entire paragraphs showing why originalism is the most effective and accurate interpretation of words... 6) This argument is *very* relevant because it attacks another core premise of Pro's case: that the Redskin name carries offensive connotations.
Pro has utterly failed to rebut this contention, which is devastating to his chances of winning the debate, as it alone is sufficient to negate the resolution (as described in sub-point 7).
1) Pro will prudently note that I said my contentions function independently of each other to negate the resolution, which means pointing out contradictions between them does nothing to mitigate them.
2) The source I cited simply served to show that there are emotional harms on the side of Redskins team/fans as well; Pro has not even done that much, only telling us that big impersonal organizations (which almost certainly don't actually represent the views of 1.2 million individuals) disapprove of the name.
3) Pro does not show that either of the "flaws" are necessarily bad. Just as Pro thinks that only the opinions of NA's are relevant in this issue, perhaps it is for the better that only football fans have their opinions represented. Whatever the case, Pro-Redskin people still far outnumber anti-Redskin people. 59% of America's more than 300 million people are "football fans", so 71% of that is still *far* more than 1.2 million [http://www.nfl.com...].
4) The "Fighting Sioux" example serves as a case study and is thus still relevant
5) I clearly demonstrated last round that Pro has not successfully justified his deontological ethical system (see C1). Pro has flatly lost on both utilitarianism and deontology.
== NEG CASE ==
I have run out of time...
-- Cross-apply C1, C2
-- Pro concedes that words change in meaning over time, yet denies that the meaning could be different now. This claim is self-contradictory and should be rejected
-- Pro doesn't show any widespread occurrences of the conditions he notes occurring in NA's as a direct result of the Redskins name...
-- Cross-apply O1, O2, O3 and previous rebuttals (Pro has not successfully mitigated many of them)
-- Pro gives no evidence to show that his studies actually accounted for all other economic factors. His sources are not particularly reputable.
-- same as O2-5
-- Pro does not show that the Redskins have a "practical obligation" to maximize their profits...
I know this was extremely rushed, but the resolution is nevertheless resoundingly negated. There is no obligation for the Redskins to change their name.
Thanks for the debate, UchihaMadara!
Having run out of time, Con unfortunately dropped most of the debate.
In contrast, Pro secured a win in several ways. The most obvious are because Con both conceded my BoP analysis (which says that any obligation is a win for Pro) and *dropped* my Obligations 9-12. These four uncontested obligations guarantee a win for Pro.
However, I've also won every other contension, which I'll make clear presently.
Con defends his 1000 extra characters of text by saying that the character limit was only an "imaginary" rule. However, that's not true. When I accepted this debate, I agreed to a limit of 10,000 characters per round. Those were Con's own settings.
Con admits that he used a link that took the voter to another webpage where he wrote a 1,000 characters of text because he wanted extra space. This is a violation of the explicit rules that I agreed to at the start of the debate.
It's also a violation of the implicit rules of debating on DDO. Users can always have the opportunity to link to a Google document, where they have virtually unlimited text. In that sense, we *do* need to follow this rule strictly. This rule violation makes debate unfair for everyone.
Con then claims that my youtube video was a violation of the rules. However, that is not the case. I had to use my characters to write a url, whereas Con avoided writing *all* of his links, except for one.
Furthermore, youtube videos are built into the debate--like pictures--in a way that Con's text is not.
Also, I neither spoke nor wrote the video. Nor did I use the video in place of arguments. Con fundamentally misunderstands the rules.
I never wrote the words of my sources. My video was usual debating, whereas *Con wrote his own source* that he linked to!
Furthermore, if Con wanted an external site for text to be allowed, he should have made it clear from the beginning. I had 18 sources the round before. It is extremely unfair for Con to have 1000 characters more space than Pro.
For these reasons, Con forfeits the debate.
Con conceded my BoP analysis. Con agreed that the shared BoP means that we treat every obligation by default as being 50% possible. This means that I only need to give the *slightest net evidence* for *any* obligation in order to win.
I will now how how this dropped analysis leads to a clear win for Pro.
Pro completely misunderstands my use of definitions.
It was my impression that the main purpose of dictionaries are to explain the current usage of words. I have given links to tons of dictionaries that claim that the current use of the word "red*kin" is an offensive slur against Native Americans. Additionally, I checked a hate slur database, which listed "red*kin" as being a current hate slur. Con *drops* all of this analysis.
Con's *only* rebuttal is a new argument. He claims that dictionaries are "not absolute." I agree. But they reliably show the current usage of words. He has therefore dropped all my relevant arguments about using dictionaries to find the current usage of words. He offered *zero* reasons to reject my dictionary definitions.
Also, Con *concedes* my arguments in O1 that many Native American tribes and the US Patent Office testify that the current use of the word is a hate slur. We have every reason to accept that the word "Red*kin" is currently a hate slur.
Con effectively dropped my Obligations 1-8. For all of my 12 obligations, Con wrote only *5 sentences total* of arguments, which were insufficent (obviously) and maybe a bit nonsensical.
Instead of writing arguments, he asks voters to do the work instead. For example, for my O2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, he asks you (dear reader) to "cross apply O1, O2, O3 [C1-3?], and previous rebuttals," saying "Pro has not successfully mitigated many of them."
However, in Con's rush he seemed to have neglected to mention which arguments I didn't mitigate, how any of his previous rebuttals apply, and why C1, 2, or 3 apply.
Worse, in most of these "rebuttals," Con fails to write a single arguments for himself.
Obligation #1: Hate slur
I have made many arguments that Con dropped about why the current use of the word "red*kin" is a hate slur.
The only response Con gives is a quote from some fans who basically says "I'm not being racist." That isn't "evidence." Just because someone says "I'm not racist" doesn't make it true.
Next, I've explained many psychological, physical, ethical, social, and economical harms of using, overhearing, or receiving a hate slur generally. Con concedes all of these findings and effects.
Con asks that I put out studies on the "Washington Red*kins" specifically. That study doesn't exist, but my studies are sufficient. Secondly, my sources *specifically mention "Red*kin"* as an ethical slur. Extend *all* of the implications of the word, including suicide.
Extend that the effects count as 13 obligations. Even if it isn't technically a slur for some reason, I've shown it still functions as one.
For 13 reasons Pro clearly wins.
=A quick word on Obligations 2-5, and 7=
Con asks the voters to cross-apply his every current and past argument to these contentions. And says nothing else.
HOW are we supposed to cross-apply these arguments? Pro makes no explanation, no analysis, and no arguments. He pretty much asks voters to make arguments for him. Dear voters, please don't make up arguments for Con. That's Con's job.
Obligation 2: Tribal Opinion
>The tribes are the most at risk for harm. Thus, their opinion is more ethically valued than the owners or fans. Con drops this arguments.
>Con drops all arguments showing various tribes' being offended by the word. We should accept this as fact.
>He drops that all tribes are different, and thus have different experiences with "Red*kin" and are thus offended to different degrees.
>He drops that *one* nation's opinion is sufficient obligation for the change.
>He drops that the minority interest shouldn't be bullied by the majority interest, as in this case.
>He drops that changing the name does no significant harm to fans.
Obligation 3: Ask permission!
>Con drops that even a slight obligation to be more acceptable is still an obligation. He drops that changing the name to wait for permission is slightly more acceptable. He therefore drops this obligation.
>Con drops that he was confusing legal and moral obligations.
>He drops that Washington is impersonating the cultural identity of Native Americans, and are therefore obligated to change their name before asking their permission.
>He drops that this obligation is multiplied by millions, for every fan and Native American.
Obligation 4: Racist stereotypes
>Con drops that Washington's name specifically causes people to treat them as "all the same" rather than individual people.
>Drops that the name causes people to perpetuate the stereotype the Native Americans are violent(!).
>Drops that perpetuating racist stereotypes is an ethical violation
Obligation 5: Racist Outfits
>Con drops the link to disrespect and to cultural genocide
>Drops the violation of some Native American tribes' ethics, which are just as valuable as any
>Drops that the name causes fans to dress up
>Drops that racist stereotypes are perpetuated through this dressing up.
>Drops that the patent loss will dramatically increase this problem.
Obligation 6: Job Discrimination
>All my sources stated that economic factors were accounted for. Con misread.
>I used two studies by a Research Associate at the Economic Policy Institute. Plenty reputable.
>Con dropped everything else. We therefore can accept this evidence as a causal relation between the Washington team name and job discrimination.
Obligation 7: Cultural Genocide
>Con dropped the whole thing, including that Washington's changing its name *may be more important than human lives*.
>Con drops that Washington's name is destroying Native cultures.
Obligation 8: Sales
Making money is a practical obligation for a for-profit organization.
O9-12 are Turns, which means that they are justified by Con's own logic. Impacts include: Racism, health care, education, access to electricity, and justification for being offended.
1.Con's one response is the offender "isn't always" to blame. Who cares? The point is change, not blame.
2.Maybe "being offended" doesn't *always* mandate change. But I show through my whole case how and why it does this time.
Org = Originalism
Con is still going for Org
1. I have shown the Org is supposed to work for books--not speech.
Con only showed that Org works for one word in one situation.
2. I showed why Org doesn't work here
3. Con gives no evidence of "intent."
4. The fans wear headdresses. Obviously, bad intent.
5. Fans' intents may contradict
6. Con gave no reason why Org is better than anything else.
1. Con concedes that his points contradict. At least one of them therefore fails.
2. Con's emotional evidence is one person claiming to cry.
3. If Con's numbers are right, that's only 41% of US people who agree with the name, leaving possibly 59% who don't. However, the poll about "NFL fans" is biased in the same way as ESPN's polls--self-selection bias. Thus, we have no idea what the "majority" opinion is on the word.
>Additionally, the poll included no alternative names. The fans may only want to change "Red*kins" to avoid a worse name they have in mind. They would answer more favorably in the context of a good alternative.
>Con conceded my good alternatives
4. Case studies aren't generalizable.
During this debate, I have shown that Pro has unquestionably won many times over. I've first shown how Con broke the rules of the debate, meriting a forfeit. Additionally, I only needed to win *one* obligatoin, but I have won *all 12* (or 24, see O1)! Four weren't even mentioned in Con's last round, and all Con's contentions clearly flopped.
For all these reasons, please vote Pro.
Thanks for reading!!
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|