Cultural Appropriation Should be Based on Intention Rather Than Race

"I have not shifted my argument. My argument has always been that your race isn't what defines cultural appropriation." However if you created the definition for cultural appropriation for the debate then that's a given. You cannot discuss a definition that is axiomatic. "Con has essentially contributed nothing to the issue in question. Every point con has made has been taking something I said out of context, or exaggerating a point I made to illogical conclusions, and furthermore, con is far more interested doing such things than actually contributing anything to the position of con." I take no responsibility for poorly phrased idealization. Pro even admits themselves that their example was poorly phrased and does not show the lingual skill required to fully express the ideas they seek to. Even with an axiomatic debate rigged in their favor they cannot back up their own assertions or reasoning adequately. "My opponent has still not made a single point to argue against intention being more important than race in defining cultural appropriation, instead preferring simply to take parts of my argument out of context without contributing one of his/her own. Con has tried to dismantle my argument, and yet has not even attempted to explained why intention isn't more important than race." Due to a lack of division between A) malicious intent, and B) defined confines, there's really no argument to counter. Asking questions for clarity was most of the debate and what little that could be said was based on the assumptions required to complete Pro's statements such as Pro's latter clarification against the status of always requiring recognition from a high ranking member of any given society for validity. "For example, your argument that tuxedos are cultural appropriation does not follow the same logic as my argument. Tuxedos are standard formal wear in many countries worldwide, they do NOT have sacred religious/spiritual traditions surrounding their usage." This is a prime example of what I mean by a lack of clarification; if the focus is entirely on spiritual and ignores traditional elements or cultural value then that is again a major shift in the argumentation. It was never stated and as Con it is not my place to ever assume therefore the safest assumption is that it would be any exclusive proposition. No one culture for instance has ownership of any given fashion item therefore this brings to question whether those who have these traditions that are not spiritual etc. are being inappropriate under this definition by not yielding, even with knowledge of the value to another group, the tradition. Regardless the value of the Tuxedo argument is actually indispensable; like many exclusive items it was taken and popularized regardless of the intentions of those who created it and in turn in the globalization of the world at large there is nothing that is beyond such. From finding Japanese shrines in Great Britain to seeing McDonald's China there is no reason why any "sacred" symbol would evade the global market. Ancient symbols on the American dollar or holy symbols used in stylized fashion and Grecian gods in popular movies are all "sacrilegious" yet no one argues for or against them. "Your argument that a Maori tattoo can be given to anyone because it looks the same and has the same significance to the person recieving it completely ignores the very reason the Maori people are so protective of these tattoos. These symbols were not just pretty pictures they painted on their faces, they were status symbols, marks of considerable prowess and honour bestowed as badges of honour and skill." The argument is that simply put the value of an item, sacred or otherwise, tattoo or not, exclusive or popular all lie within the owner and no one else. There were many status symbols of the past that are common now, many ideas and philosophies, even worse than just mere designs, have been taken and twisted into horrendous monstrosities of their former selves. Yet culture evolves and therefore there is no reason to presume that this will not continue. "Getting a Maori tattoo just because it looks pretty without earning it is like sewing sergeant stripes onto your clothes or going out wearing fake military medals without ever having served in the armed forces, just because you think they look nice." Which people do all the time; so long as it doesn't infringe on the law via impersonation it's not at all illegal or even surprising or unheard of. This is a giant argument of emotion but has no classical validity to back it. "This is the context my opponent has taken my arguments out of." You never even put them in. Regardless this an argument from emotion through and through. There's naught else to say. May the cards fall however.