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." The definition you proposed is what you are also what you are trying to prove making it axiomatic, or in simple terms, circular logic. Using a different base for understanding purposes: Claim: "Balls should be red instead of blue." Argument: "Spheres that are red are just awesome." Definition: "Balls are anything that are spherical." These are all conjoined into themselves since the definition is equivalent to the argument which is making the question/claim out to be purely rhetorical in nature. But enough of the school lesson. ------ "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.", however you defined cultural appropriation as wrong: "A white person getting a Maori tattoo because they think it looks cool = cultural appropriation = wrong." I purposefully overlooked this because I am aware that's not actually what you mean since you continuously use a different term "[ Cultural Exchange ]" in order to justify the point which then undermines your own definition for cultural appropriation and terminates your own question. It is questionable then what you meant since you either allow for it or do not relative to cultural appropriation as you defined it. "Cultural appropriation - adopting and using aspects of another culture in an incorrect or out of context manner, especially if said culture considers doing so offensive or otherwise immoral." If you wish to change your argument to cite [Cultural Exchange] by all means do so. "Cultural Exchange should be based on intention rather than race." using your definitions simply makes more sense. "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. ", I am not responsible for assuming anything in your favor including what you "meant" to say. "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.", this however has a major flaw and that is that the tattoo, whether given by a shaman or a scallywag, is exactly the same and has the same inherent value to the tattooed person. What this means is that if one believes themselves deserving of the tattoo [ which is your "intention" criteria ] then they can have it. There's nothing actually stopping them from finding themselves worthy of it. The inverse would also be true; you cannot force someone into a tattoo just because you feel they deserve it as a reward even if the intentions of the recognizing party are good and in favor of the recognized. "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." This is a massive departure from what you originally stated. It's close to "Shifting Goalposts" but dandy to me either way. "Allow me to provide a better example: ... 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." I want to consider your logic for a moment; if a person wears any uniform by which they do not have the "designated right" it could be considered cultural appropriation. Wouldn't a Native American in a tuxedo be the same? Tuxedos (http://www.wsj.com...) for instance are widespread formal wear but have a very real and designated purpose and history; they were not "made for everyone", but culture adapted, evolved, and soon no one thought for a moment on the matter. Wearing a WWJD ("What would Jesus do?" [http://www.todayifoundout.com...] ) bracelet has the same value. There have been many remakes of this bracelet and the phrase has been changed many times to fit cultural backdrops; was it "wrong"? One who cannot accept that culture is a living thing and gets upset that people dress up on Halloween, a social holiday most people recognize as a costumed one, is likely too sensitive to live in a melting pot society. Nothing is sacred; from the jeans and overalls no one minds to the many types of weather defensive wears people often utilize such as hats, caps, and other stylized or practical items including even types of shoes like moccasins versus clogs and boots. "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." You changed your initial argument. "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." This actually changes your original argument again. It'd be nice if you just stated in one sentence what you mean. I mean honestly you state that it's not morally wrong to adopt an aspect of another culture based on race but then state that it i morally wrong to dress up in a Halloween costume and that it's racist and wrong to elect to, without knowing what a specific style means, utilize it. Henna and Mendhi (http://niralimagazine.com...) have spiritual and cultural meanings as well but is it wrong to simply want a temporary tattoo? I believe Pro has stared too hard at the issue to see how unrealistic their argument is. For one they've not substantiated who or what gauges "intention" and then they've simply not substantiated their conditions; is it right in one light but wrong in another? Is it always wrong? To what extent is it wrong and where does cultural "claim" end? After all even crowns and rosaries and crosses fall under "specifically cultural artifacts" and these are incredibly common.