The Washington Redskins should change their team name

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 changeObviously, 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. " [1].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," [2]. "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." [3].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. C3) Utilitarianism 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 [4], to the ESPN reporting that number as being 79% [5]. 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." [6]."'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." [7].C4) Furthering racist sentimentsI 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 :)[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.cnn.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[5] http://espn.go.com...[6] http://espn.go.com...[7] http://washington.cbslocal.com...