Taboo against the N-word is irrational.

Moving forward, I will continue the precedent of using the term 'N-word' for the sake of tact. To clarify though, the 'N-Word' refers to 'nigger', a derogatory term historically associated with racism against people of African origin. For further clarification, the N-word is not banned by law, but rather by society. People are free to use it as they wish. My opponent argues that "Taboo against the N-word is irrational." He uses the following arguments to prove this: 1) The banning of classic literature in the public school system, primarily because that literature contains the N-Word. Preventing access to classic art is assumed to be worse for society. 2) Hate is generated against people who use the N-Word when communicating, which results in unnecessary ill will. An increase in overall ill will is assumed to be worse for society. 3) Racism and other forms of inequality are essentially encouraged by the fact that only specific types of people, from specific demographic groups, are allowed to use the N-word. This greater inequality is also assumed to be worse for society. In summary, my opponent is basically arguing that tabooing (essentially banning or placing a societal label of impropriety on) derogatory words (specifically the N-Word, is irrational, because society is worsened as a result. In further summary, my opponent is arguing that any actions which result in the worsening of society are irrational. To be fair, I can be more specific in saying that any action is irrational if it results in the banning of classic literature, an increase in overall ill will, and greater overall inequality. My argument(s): Definitions of irrational (Dictionary.com): - without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. - without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. - not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. - not endowed with the faculty of reason Considering this definition, I simply need to prove that proper reasoning was, or could have been, used in tabooing the N-word. Example: 1) A group of historically disadvantaged people considers the use of a particular word to reflect a public perception that the people comprising that group are genetically inferior to the remainder of the population. 2) This word is stigmatized within the group, as the people comprising the group are not only insulted by the word, but are also because that word propagates the belief that these people are inferior. 3) It is more difficult for people who are considered inferior to achieve employment and legal rights. 4) In order for people belonging to this group to be able to achieve employment and legal rights, they needed to prove that they were not inferior, and also to convince members of the remainder of the population not to encourage actions that propagated the belief that they were inferior. 5) Members of the general population who stood to gain from having members of the group considered 'not inferior' also stigmatize the word. This further reduces the propagation of the belief that these people are inferior. As can be observed in this example, the tabooing of a word in order to achieve economic and legal equality is a very rational action. If the usage of a word encourages beliefs that a person is less qualified than another, then that person would be very rational in attempting to have that word used less. It is not irrational to assume that the usage of a specific word can result in the assumption that a person is inferior to the rest of the population. For example, the word 'retarded'. People referred to as retarded are typically considered less capable than the remainder of the population. As such, they are less likely to be hired for complex tasks than members of the remainder of the population. So it would benefit people referred to as retarded to discourage use of that word as a descriptive term, for economic reasons as well as social. As for my opponent's arguments: 1) I'm not completely sure where 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is legally banned (could you provide proof?), but even if it is...The belief that certain classic literature is necessary for the betterment of students is a totally different topic, and outside the scope of this discussion. The belief that no literature should be banned is also outside the scope of this debate. Attaching a social stigma to a piece of literature IS within the scope of the debate though. Any literature which is considered to propagate a belief that is not preferred by a certain group of people might be stigmatized by that group of people. While 'To Kill a Mockingbird' does not necessarily propagate said belief, it is not irrational that certain people consider the use of the word in general encourages further usage of the word. 2) Taboo is generally the result of hate or dislike. So dislike for the word, due to rational reasons, is why the word is tabooed. It is not disliked because it was tabooed. As a result, it is completely rational to assume that those who use the word, especially those who use it in order to encourage the belief that the group of people who originally stigmatized it are inferior, are 'hated' by the rest of the population. It is simply a form of social discouragement. This is also completely rational. 3) It is not irrational for people to believe they have ownership over a word. There can be social and economic reasons for this, none of which are necessarily irrational. An easy example: If I get paid $5 every time I say 'Hello', then I may discourage anyone else from saying 'Hello' in order to retain my income from using that word. In conclusion, my opponent uses his own personal beliefs to highlight situations that supposedly worsen society. He then uses these situations to attempt to prove that it is irrational for society to taboo a word. In response, I provided a general example which reflected rationality with regards to the tabooing of a word. In addition, I responded to his specific examples.