Cultural Appropriation Should be Based on Intention Rather Than Race

I fail to see how this debate is rigged or how my definitions are contradictory. I acknowledge the flaw in my example, but would like to point out it was merely an example, and that in the case of that specific example it is more appropriate. A true Maori tattoo given out of cultural exchange (as opposed to simply asking for one at a random tattoo parlour) would be given by someone who is well versed in Maori culture, and who would understand the sacred nature of these tattoos and the necessity not to hand them out to anyone who asks, and would therefore only give one to someone they deemed deserving. This is the basis on which I made my example. Granted, I did not explain this very well, but I would like to point out to my opponent that I did not say an authority figure has to give permission for every single case. In the case of the Maori tattoo, such an authority figure is inherent, as the artist of said tattoo would be the authority figure, being well-versed in Maori culture and traditions. If they are not, and are simply a normal tattoo artist who happens to offer Maori tattoos with no context or relevance to the original culture, then they have no business giving these sacred tattoos to simply anyone who asks. This would be cultural appropriation both on the part of the tattoo artist and anyone who recieves one from them.I apologise for not explaining my example more clearly, but I also point out that I never said such an authority figure is inherent to all cases of cultural exchange. What I am arguing against is the climate of political correctness that says it is inherently wrong for someone to adopt an aspect of a culture they were not born into, regardless of their reasons for doing so. I am arguing that it is okay to adopt such a thing if one does it out of respect for the culture, and does it in an appropriate and dignified way. Allow me to provide a better example:If a white person wears a bindi because they have studied and adopted the religious and spiritual traditions in which it is commonly used, this is not cultural appropriation and is therefore acceptable.If a white person wears a Native American headdress as a party costume, this is cultural appropriation and therefore not acceptable, as said headdresses are sacred to Native American culture and are a mark of status. To adopt it as a party costume is to belittle the traditions behind it in a manner that could easily be compared to racism, as well as to imply that they have a certain high status within Native American society that they likely do not actually have. When I say that defining cultural appropriation should be based on intention rather than race, what I mean (and what I have stated previously) is that we should not declare someone is appropriating another culture simply because they are a different race to the culture they are adopting, but that the judgement should be based on intention. If someone's intention is to adopt aspects of a culture they admire in a respectful and dignified way, it should not be considered cultural appropriation. If someone's intention is to adopt aspects of a culture they know little about in a mocking, comedic or disrespectful way, then it should be considered cultural appropriation. I apologise if this was not clear enough in my initial post.With this in mind, I cannot see any points my opponent has made against my initial argument except taking an example I gave further than it was intended, which again I apologise for not being clear enough.Simply put, my argument is that it is not morally wrong for someone to adopt an aspect of another culture just because they are a different race to the one that culture originated from. The morality of this action is dependent on the intention of the person adopting other cultural traditions, not inherently on their race.