The Washington Redskins should change their team name

http://www.youtube.com... This ad is paid for by the Oneida Nation. =Broken Rules= Con broke the rules of this debate by deliberately linking to an external source with extra debate space, adding nearly 1,000 illegal characters of text and sources. Con thus forfeits the debate. =BoP= Con and I have a SHARED BoP, which means that there is no default winner. Con says in (C1) that unless Pro proves beyond a doubt that Washington has an obligation to change their name, Con wins by default. However, Con clear describes a debate where Pro has the *full* BoP. - Shared BoP is like a see-saw. For each position (in this case each “obligation”), the scales are neutral—Con and Pro each have 50% chance of being right. During the debate, we are each trying to tip the scales in our favor. Thus, in this debate, Con needs to show that it is *more likely* that Washington has *no* obligation to change its name. Likewise, Pro needs to show that it is *more likely* that Washington has an obligation to change their name. =Definitions= In EVERY DICTIONARY I could find, “Red*kins” was considered offensive, taboo, or a hateful slur. We must accept the word “Redskin” is currently offensive. Con does not contest my definitions. =Alternaties= Why not Washington “Redtails” (honoring a ground of African-American pilots)(19), or the “Oorang Indians” (which actually honors a famous team of American Indian football players)(20)? (19) http://tinyurl.com... (20) http://tinyurl.com... =Case= Obligation #1 Hate Slur 1. The current use of the word as an ethnic slur is supported by every dictionary and hate database I could find. Furthermore, the indirect testimony of millions of Native Americans, the United States patent office, and the direct input of many tribes supports this fact. 2. The historical use was to refer to the bloody corpse of a Native American scalp sold for money. Con completely missed the point when he cited an earlier benign use of the R-word. The N-word also has a benign original use—it was simply Latin for “black” (24). However, there were other relevant momement in history that made the N-word bad, just like the R-word. 3. Con wanted to know if racial slurs have negative effects. Sure! (21, 22, 23) a. Merely overhearing a racial slur lowers one’s opinion of the recipient (times millions for Washington fans concerning Native Americans). b. Dehumanizes c. Can cause physiological and psychological injuries, including: *Nightmares *Difficulty breathing *Stress *Heart disease *High blood pressure *Depression *Thoughts of suicide d. Can cause POC to leave their home or job to avoid recurring racial slur e. “… [racial slurs] lay the groundwork for both individual and state-sponsored violence against that group” f. Causes user to assume negative stereotypes about group All of these are effects of merely using, receiving, or overhearing a racial slur, completely apart from intent. I’ve proven either a dozen obligations, or one big one. Either way, Pro wins.- (21) http://tinyurl.com... (22) http://tinyurl.com... (23) http://tinyurl.com... (24) http://tinyurl.com... Obligation #2: Tribal Opinion Are the opinions of Native American tribes less valuable because they are fewer in number? I say no. In fact, the fact that 300 million people are insulting the dignity of a racial minority makes things far worse. Tribes’ opinions are what is relevant in this debate, because they are the ones at risk of significant harm. It may be slightly offensive to a couple Washington fans to change the name, but keeping the name is far more offensive to Native Americans. If the majority’s interest were morally allowed to overcome the minority’s interest, slavery would still be accepted. Lastly, Con linked to a story of a single high school supporting the Washington team’s name. Really, Con? One high school? - I will later show how Con has no real evidence of a “majority opinion.” - For these reasons, please vote Pro. Obligation #3: Ask permission! 1. If the Washington team name can be changed to make it more acceptable, then Washington has an obligation to do so, even if only a small one. 2. Con seems to confuse legal obligation with moral obligation. 3. If you are going to use your team to represent another’s identity, the least you can do is ask their permission first. If you are going to name your team the “Bill Gates,” you are morally obligated to ask him first, or else risk slander. Using a harmful ethnic slur to refer to an ethnicity and racist costumes constitutes slander. The immorality of Washington’s name is multiplied by millions, for each fan immorally stealing and slandering the identity of a race. Obligation #4: Racist stereotypes I gave two links to racism, both of which Con failed to refute. 1. Having a team name dedicated to an entire race is bound to make it seem like they are all alike. In fact, there is no way to depict the well over 500 tribes of Native Americans as a cohesive whole. 2. Team names are meant to characterize the group as ferocious. Categorizing Native Americans as ferocious is racist, and a stereotype that many Native Americans have worked for hundreds of years to undo. Perpetuating racism is highly unethical. For this reason, please vote Pro. Obligation #5: Racist Outfits 1. I have clearly shown that making “Red*kin” the team name causes people to wear “stereotypical Native American” clothing, including headdresses. I have shown that that is disrespectful to that culture and historically inaccurate (link to #7). And it is indeed unethical to insult another culture, especially when they do not deserve it. 2. Furthermore, according to certain tribes’ mores, one is *ethically obliged* not to wear headdresses unless earned. Simply because this is not a European ethical obligation does not make it less of an ethical obligation. 3. Fans dress up as their team symbol. If the Washington team no longer represents the “Red*kins,” far fewer fans will dress up as that. 4. Fans unintentionally(?) depict Native Americans as savage and alcoholic, which is quite racist. Unsurprisingly there have been no studies on Washington’s football team and racism, but using logic we can justifiably assume a causal role. 5. Washington lost its patent, which mean they have no control over the merchandise fans wear. Thus, *tens of thousands* more will likely be in redface, unless the name changes. For all these reasons vote Pro. Obligation #6: Job Discrimination Con was not careful here. My previous studies *accounted for* other economic factors, and still showed in inequality in employment. Both sources admitted that the best explanation for the data is discrimination. Con dropped everything else. Causing job discrimination is a *major* ethical violation. Con shouldn't have dropped this obligation. Obviously, Pro wins this point/debate. Obligation #7: Cultural Genocide Cultural genocide is worthy of more than 5-words! I have shown exactly why Native American children are even willing to die for their culture to be preserved. I have shown exactly why Washington’s team is committing cultural genocide. It's not a mere matter of “being offended”--the survival of cultures are on the line. Because culture was more important than life to many Native Americans, Washington has a *colossal* obligation to avoid cultural genocide. Con entirely dropped this point. Pro has thus *clearly* won the debate. Obligation #8: Loss of memorabilia. Con’s O5 makes no sense in this context. I’m saying that changing the name is a good, practical business decision because the team is about to lose most of it’s money. Don’t let Con pick this point back up. Please vote Pro. =Turns= Obligation #9: Using an ethnic slur as a name is irrational. Con dropped. O#10: Justified offense The term carries the connotations of being merely an enemy who is better dead. “Getting offended” is justified in this case. Con dropped. O#11: The original intention of the owner’s were racist. Con dropped. O #12: Changing the name will allow protesters to focus on improving other things, including health care, education, and access to electricity. Con dropped. =Rebuttal= “C1” 1.Cross apply “BoP” for an analysis of why Con’s analysis of BoP is incorrect. 2.There are many reasons to stand up against bullies. It is quite possible to bully with words. If someone is being verbally abusive, we do not blame the one getting offended. We blame the one offending. That is obvious. Native Americans aren’t getting offending on a whim. My entire case shows why it is justified. Even if Native Americans aren’t justified, their feelings and input remain the same. My entire case is unchanged. Cross apply my whole case. “C2” “Originalism” is the most pointless contention ever. 1.Con’s main source is an online debate, which is hardly unbiased. 2.Originalism generally applies to law, and maybe literature. It does not apply here. 3.In this case, who would be the “author”? The first person to use the R-word? The #1 fan? There is no way to apply this. 4.There is no way to apply originalism here, because we cannot read peoples’ minds to find their intentions. 5.Con gives no reason why originalism is better than any other way of understanding language. 6.Even if it is the best interpretation of a word, *so what*? Even if the protestors are irrational, *so what*? My entire case *still* works to show why the name should be changed. Originalism is irrelevant on many levels. “C3” 1.When did Con care about people being upset? 2.How many fans were in tears? One? 3.ESPN’s polls did not take into account that people might like an alternative to “Red*kins” better. Also, ESPN’s polls suffered from “selection bias.” People would likely hang up unless they were big fans of football. Thus, it is likely that only football fans answered the poll, skewing the results. 4.”Fighting Sioux” is still irrelevant. 5.I *have* justified my ethics. I am winning Deontology AND Utilitarianism. ==Obviously, Pro has won this debate. Con has no working offensive points, but Pro has at least 12 (and only 1 is needed).