The Washington Redskins should change their team name

Thanks for the debate, kbub. 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. C2) Originalism 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). C3) Utilitarianism 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... O1: -- 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... O2-5: -- Cross-apply O1, O2, O3 and previous rebuttals (Pro has not successfully mitigated many of them) O6: -- Pro gives no evidence to show that his studies actually accounted for all other economic factors. His sources are not particularly reputable. O7: -- same as O2-5 O8: -- 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.