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. I have since the beginning been consistent in my argument, and have stated numerous times that it is intention rather than race that defines cultural appropriation, and have stuck to this. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. It is taking something that is sacred, that has a proud historical tradition, and that is supposed to be preserved and only given to those considered truly deserving of it, and turning it into a fashion statement. This is the context my opponent has taken my arguments out of. My opponent ignores cultural and religious significance of such items, and the context of their usage within those cultures. The tuxedo is not a mark of anything except wealth. It does not denote authority, rank or spirituality in the same way a Native American headdress does, and is not unique or sacred to any particular culture. As for my "rigged" definition of cultural appropriation, I would like to point out that my definitions do not in fact state what I am trying to prove. My definition of cultural appropriation was "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. " This does not outright state that cultural appropriation is defined by the intentions of the individual, as many could (and indeed do) consider it incorrect and offensive to adopt aspects of another culture at all, regardless of intention. As the debate is about to conclude, I would like to finish by asking my opponent this simple question - what actually is your argument? Did you accept the position of con because you believe race is more important than intention in defining cultural appropriation? If so, why have you not argued that point at all?