The Washington Redskins should change their team name

Thanks for the debate, UchihaMadara!=Pro wins=Having run out of time, Con unfortunately dropped most of the debate.In contrast, Pro secured a win in several ways. The most obvious are because Con both conceded my BoP analysis (which says that any obligation is a win for Pro) and *dropped* my Obligations 9-12. These four uncontested obligations guarantee a win for Pro.However, I've also won every other contension, which I'll make clear presently.=Broken Rules=Con defends his 1000 extra characters of text by saying that the character limit was only an "imaginary" rule. However, that's not true. When I accepted this debate, I agreed to a limit of 10,000 characters per round. Those were Con's own settings.Con admits that he used a link that took the voter to another webpage where he wrote a 1,000 characters of text because he wanted extra space. This is a violation of the explicit rules that I agreed to at the start of the debate. It's also a violation of the implicit rules of debating on DDO. Users can always have the opportunity to link to a Google document, where they have virtually unlimited text. In that sense, we *do* need to follow this rule strictly. This rule violation makes debate unfair for everyone.-Con then claims that my youtube video was a violation of the rules. However, that is not the case. I had to use my characters to write a url, whereas Con avoided writing *all* of his links, except for one. Furthermore, youtube videos are built into the debate--like pictures--in a way that Con's text is not.Also, I neither spoke nor wrote the video. Nor did I use the video in place of arguments. Con fundamentally misunderstands the rules. I never wrote the words of my sources. My video was usual debating, whereas *Con wrote his own source* that he linked to!-Furthermore, if Con wanted an external site for text to be allowed, he should have made it clear from the beginning. I had 18 sources the round before. It is extremely unfair for Con to have 1000 characters more space than Pro.For these reasons, Con forfeits the debate.=BoP=Con conceded my BoP analysis. Con agreed that the shared BoP means that we treat every obligation by default as being 50% possible. This means that I only need to give the *slightest net evidence* for *any* obligation in order to win.I will now how how this dropped analysis leads to a clear win for Pro.=Definitions=Pro completely misunderstands my use of definitions.It was my impression that the main purpose of dictionaries are to explain the current usage of words. I have given links to tons of dictionaries that claim that the current use of the word "red*kin" is an offensive slur against Native Americans. Additionally, I checked a hate slur database, which listed "red*kin" as being a current hate slur. Con *drops* all of this analysis. Con's *only* rebuttal is a new argument. He claims that dictionaries are "not absolute." I agree. But they reliably show the current usage of words. He has therefore dropped all my relevant arguments about using dictionaries to find the current usage of words. He offered *zero* reasons to reject my dictionary definitions. Also, Con *concedes* my arguments in O1 that many Native American tribes and the US Patent Office testify that the current use of the word is a hate slur. We have every reason to accept that the word "Red*kin" is currently a hate slur.=Obligations=Con effectively dropped my Obligations 1-8. For all of my 12 obligations, Con wrote only *5 sentences total* of arguments, which were insufficent (obviously) and maybe a bit nonsensical.Instead of writing arguments, he asks voters to do the work instead. For example, for my O2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, he asks you (dear reader) to "cross apply O1, O2, O3 [C1-3?], and previous rebuttals," saying "Pro has not successfully mitigated many of them."However, in Con's rush he seemed to have neglected to mention which arguments I didn't mitigate, how any of his previous rebuttals apply, and why C1, 2, or 3 apply. Worse, in most of these "rebuttals," Con fails to write a single arguments for himself.Obligation #1: Hate slurI have made many arguments that Con dropped about why the current use of the word "red*kin" is a hate slur. The only response Con gives is a quote from some fans who basically says "I'm not being racist." That isn't "evidence." Just because someone says "I'm not racist" doesn't make it true.Next, I've explained many psychological, physical, ethical, social, and economical harms of using, overhearing, or receiving a hate slur generally. Con concedes all of these findings and effects. Con asks that I put out studies on the "Washington Red*kins" specifically. That study doesn't exist, but my studies are sufficient. Secondly, my sources *specifically mention "Red*kin"* as an ethical slur. Extend *all* of the implications of the word, including suicide.Extend that the effects count as 13 obligations. Even if it isn't technically a slur for some reason, I've shown it still functions as one.For 13 reasons Pro clearly wins.=A quick word on Obligations 2-5, and 7=Con asks the voters to cross-apply his every current and past argument to these contentions. And says nothing else.HOW are we supposed to cross-apply these arguments? Pro makes no explanation, no analysis, and no arguments. He pretty much asks voters to make arguments for him. Dear voters, please don't make up arguments for Con. That's Con's job.==Obligation 2: Tribal Opinion>The tribes are the most at risk for harm. Thus, their opinion is more ethically valued than the owners or fans. Con drops this arguments.>Con drops all arguments showing various tribes' being offended by the word. We should accept this as fact.>He drops that all tribes are different, and thus have different experiences with "Red*kin" and are thus offended to different degrees.>He drops that *one* nation's opinion is sufficient obligation for the change.>He drops that the minority interest shouldn't be bullied by the majority interest, as in this case.>He drops that changing the name does no significant harm to fans.Obligation 3: Ask permission!>Con drops that even a slight obligation to be more acceptable is still an obligation. He drops that changing the name to wait for permission is slightly more acceptable. He therefore drops this obligation.>Con drops that he was confusing legal and moral obligations.>He drops that Washington is impersonating the cultural identity of Native Americans, and are therefore obligated to change their name before asking their permission.>He drops that this obligation is multiplied by millions, for every fan and Native American.Obligation 4: Racist stereotypes>Con drops that Washington's name specifically causes people to treat them as "all the same" rather than individual people.>Drops that the name causes people to perpetuate the stereotype the Native Americans are violent(!).>Drops that perpetuating racist stereotypes is an ethical violationObligation 5: Racist Outfits>Con drops the link to disrespect and to cultural genocide>Drops the violation of some Native American tribes' ethics, which are just as valuable as any>Drops that the name causes fans to dress up>Drops that racist stereotypes are perpetuated through this dressing up.>Drops that the patent loss will dramatically increase this problem.Obligation 6: Job Discrimination>All my sources stated that economic factors were accounted for. Con misread.>I used two studies by a Research Associate at the Economic Policy Institute. Plenty reputable.>Con dropped everything else. We therefore can accept this evidence as a causal relation between the Washington team name and job discrimination.Obligation 7: Cultural Genocide>Con dropped the whole thing, including that Washington's changing its name *may be more important than human lives*.>Con drops that Washington's name is destroying Native cultures.Obligation 8: SalesMaking money is a practical obligation for a for-profit organization.O9-12--All Dropped--O9-12 are Turns, which means that they are justified by Con's own logic. Impacts include: Racism, health care, education, access to electricity, and justification for being offended.=Rebuttals=C11.Con's one response is the offender "isn't always" to blame. Who cares? The point is change, not blame.2.Maybe "being offended" doesn't *always* mandate change. But I show through my whole case how and why it does this time.3.Contradicts C3.C2Org = OriginalismCon is still going for Org1. I have shown the Org is supposed to work for books--not speech. Con only showed that Org works for one word in one situation.2. I showed why Org doesn't work here3. Con gives no evidence of "intent."4. The fans wear headdresses. Obviously, bad intent.5. Fans' intents may contradict6. Con gave no reason why Org is better than anything else.C31. Con concedes that his points contradict. At least one of them therefore fails.2. Con's emotional evidence is one person claiming to cry.3. If Con's numbers are right, that's only 41% of US people who agree with the name, leaving possibly 59% who don't. However, the poll about "NFL fans" is biased in the same way as ESPN's polls--self-selection bias. Thus, we have no idea what the "majority" opinion is on the word.>Additionally, the poll included no alternative names. The fans may only want to change "Red*kins" to avoid a worse name they have in mind. They would answer more favorably in the context of a good alternative.>Con conceded my good alternatives4. Case studies aren't generalizable.=Conclusion= During this debate, I have shown that Pro has unquestionably won many times over. I've first shown how Con broke the rules of the debate, meriting a forfeit. Additionally, I only needed to win *one* obligatoin, but I have won *all 12* (or 24, see O1)! Four weren't even mentioned in Con's last round, and all Con's contentions clearly flopped.For all these reasons, please vote Pro.Thanks for reading!!