The NFL should not allow a team to be called the Redskins

Nice debate. I'm glad you stole the format. I think it makes it way easier to debate and read. 1. Free Speech This is the most critical issue in the debate. Since we are trying to determine whether or not the name should be used, free speech is the go to argument. You dodge my argument here. As I stated in the second round, legality is not the issue. The fact that you center the debate on ethical ground doesn't exonerate you from violating civil liberties. We agree that "absolutely nothing should impede on the first amendment" and as I said last round, that includes ethical prescriptions. You are using societal norms instead of laws to limit free speech. Since we both agreed that free speech is the ultimate ethical position it is more ethical for the Redskins organization to call the team whatever they want then to abide by the lesser ethics of political correctness. There is no distinction between me calling my pickup team something offensive and the Redskins maintaining their name. Both of us are private organizations exercising, as you agreed, our ultimate right to free speech. While the Redskins may command a larger platform, the offensive nature of their mascot is irrelevant because they are entirely within their right, ethically and legally. Your other examples do not apply as they are not matters of free speech, but of public acceptance. The newspaper may not accept my article, but if I had my own newspaper I would be entirely within my right to include the most racist articles I pleased. If someone tried to restrict that right, I would hope you and I would both cry free speech. The Redskins are their own organization and can do as they please. Again, the Redskins are on ethically superior ground. Both of us agree on this. "absolutely nothing" means just that, whether it be laws or societal opinion, nothing should bar the Redskins from keeping their name. 2. Nature of the word "N! gga" is a perfect example of what I am arguing. A normally insulting word loses its derogatory value when used in a positive manner. If I went up to a Native American and called him a redskin, its an entirely different matter than a team naming itself the Redskins. Fans of the Redskins use the word with pride and rally behind it rather than use it for insult. The positive way the word is used strips your case of its principle harm. 3. Prejudice Again, you are proving my point. Rather than pick the most insulting mascot, such as Negroes, the team picked something they could take pride in and simply used a now politically incorrect term. The effort was not to be derogatory. Why would someone pick a derogatory mascot to represent themselves? My point here is that the team was named with the best intentions without the knowledge that Native Americans would be offended 80 yrs down the line. The team now has a tradition as the Redskins and are within their right, ethically and legally, to maintain it. So, even if Pro wins every other argument, we agree that free speech is the most valued standard in the debate. Whether it be with laws, or in this case societal norms, free speech should not be impeded for any reason. Again, we agree on this. The organization can call itself whatever it pleases and obviously still wishes to be called the Redskins. It doesn't matter what reason we provide, for the purposes of this debate, "absolutely nothing" can change that. Thank you. I enjoyed the debate.