The Washington Redskins should change their team name

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 change1. 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 meanings1. 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.C3) Utilitarianism1. 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 [1]. 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 SlurFirstly, 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." [2].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 OpinionFirstly, 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 [3].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 StereotypesThis 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 FansCross-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 [4]. 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 DiscriminationThis 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 [5].O7) Cultural GenocideCross-apply rebuttal to O5.O8) Memorabilia SalesCross-apply rebuttal to O5.SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...