azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The controversy about the Washington Redskin's mascot has exploded with outrage. I believe it shouldn't be changed. I think that people are just being too sensitive on this subject or comepletely TARGETING it. There is a high school in Oklahoma called the McLoud Redskins. That school did not even get a little bit of negativity from people, yet the team Washington Redskins do. What is the difference? The both use the term directly, but nobody even cares about the high school McLoud. Although, people say it is a HIGHLY racial slur. I don't think so. This was meant to honor Native Americans and if they can't accept that, then they can't accept their own culture. Another reason why is because the Indians called themselves the "Redskins", shouldn't it be an honor to them? Opponents of mine say that even the word "Redskins" is a completely racist word. Techincally, it is, but do you really think the team meant for that definition to come into play? You do realize they meant honor, not referring to that definition?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Did you even read the full article about the McCloud Redskins? I did a quick google search on the School and guess what i found? Every single page was about McCloud Redskins and The Washington Redskins should change their name and how there is alot of controversy. So if you read the entire article you would of see that the school DID get negativity.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Over the past several years, the debate over whether or not the Washington Redskins should change their name has escalated. Most people say that this teams name is a racial slur and needs to be changed, while others think that there is a piece of the teams history and shouldn't be changed. In my opinion, it shouldn't be changed.Many people want the name to be changed because it is considered a racial term, even though the term was created by Native Americans and was also approved by Native American leaders. The term "redskin" was also used to refer to chiefs by other Native Americans. They also used this term to differentiate themselves from the Europeans.As heard on FOX News, 90 percent of Native Americans polled that the term was not offensive. If the team's name was so offensive, the NFL surely would have changed it by now. Believe what you want, but in my opinion, the teams name isn't racist and doesn't need to be changed.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The name is offensive or else why would there be so many Websites against it and why would the news be exploding about it. The reason the name hasn't been changed is because the owner of the team said he would "NEVER" change it, he even said to put it in caps. So far even the government is against including the President who said the name was highly offensve in October.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I think everyone is doing a great job, but a point I don't think anyone has mentioned yet is that, we don't know what the motive was to creating this team name that has obviously created many great debacles. People will take offense to anything, saying that cauq-Asians live on Starbucks, Chipolte, and selfies. That is a huge stereo type right now. I believe that the "racial slur" of the name, is in intentional, and even though pope ole take offense to it, it is not intended to do that.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

About the stereo-type that "cauq-Asians" live on Starbucks, Chipotle, and Selfies. That might be a stereo-type but would you actaully take offense to that? Seriously do you not understand that this is a joke made to poke fun at popular and trending things like: Starbucks,Chipotle, and selfies. I know that all of the people I know won't go creating websites about how controversial that is or how it offends them. BUT there are websites about the name "redskins"
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Well we don't know the motive but we do have a good idea. If a team that was the last team in America to pick an African American onto their team and only did because they were forced to by the goevernment, a team that was owned by an outspoken racist man makes their team the "Redskins" what would you think. Obvioulsy it was meant to be racist.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

"Kansas City Chiefs, Florida State Seminoles, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks, and of course the most controversial, Washington Redskins. Many people believe that this name is derogative and is a racial slur, I do not. I believe that the Washington Redskins is not a derogative name and shouldn't be changed by Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins.One point other people who want the name to be changed are making is that its a derogative term. Many people actually take the name as an honor that a famous sports team is using a Native American name as their mascot. The name was actually created by Native American and approved by Native American leaders.Another reason why I believe the Redskins should keep there name is because when African Americans and Hispanics wanted their rights they marched peacefully throughout the country, and the Native Americans haven't been marching anywhere for the Redskins to change their name. Also, Native Americans aren't too worried about the name, rather than losing their land and traditions.If you want to look from the other side's perspective, the name might seem offensive to some people, but just because a few people believe that the name is offensive doesn't mean that everybody can be pleased. Anyways, people can just ignore the team and not pay attention to it or it's games."- j_millan in the 8th grade chat
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The reasons the Native Americans are not "marching peacefully" in protest is because the way we treat them already, they are in poverty and abused by many people they have to run casinos just to feed themselves. Naming a team "redskins" just doean't help. Also I find that you keep repeating the same arguments, ones that I have already countered and it does not help to repeat them just so I can type the same answer again.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Now that I've thought about it, I don't think Indians are getting the respect they deserve. Indian casinos, Indian sports teams, what's next? No, the Indian name doesn't honor them, it's just a theme.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Did you know that Indian casinos are on Indian reservations, and are run by natives who own the land?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

And who gave them that land out of pity for taking their homeland?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Then don't write the same answer and find something else to say. Like find more evidence, it helped in debate club, :)
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I write the same answer over and over to show you how wrong your arguments (that you repeat) are. My evidence may be lacking but in your debates I have not seen a single piece of evidence for your arguments and you seem to not have cited any websites where this information was acquired from. I have written it before that most of my info comes from ChangeTheMascot.org. Your arguments are as lacking in evidence if not more than mine.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Who said we abuse them nowadays. We created the act that let them run casinos and we created reserves. We dont abuse them and we didn't make them go into poverty, its just life.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Yeah, we don't abuse them, we just take their land, force them into destitution in barren reservations and provide little to no help with the fallout.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I said NOWADAYS i never said we didnt abused them in the past which we did. But we do help the natives. We set up reserves, let them build casinos and now Dan Snyder redskins owner, is helping natives. Bribe or not at the end of the day its still help.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Have you done any research on the reserves? A VERY large amount of them are destitute, with horrible conditions and massive alcoholism. The casinos benefit relatively small groups.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Support for continued use of the name has come from the team's owners and a majority of fans, which include some Native Americans. Supporters say that the name honors the achievements and virtues of Native Americans, and that it is not intended in a negative manner. Some, such as team president Bruce Allen, also point to the use of Redskins by three high school teams, two on reservations, that have a majority of Native American students. Supporters also assert that a majority of Native Americans themselves are not offended, based upon a public opinion poll in 2004 in which 90% of those who identified as American Indians answered that they were "not bothered" by the name "Redskins" being used for the Washington football team. However in a commentary published soon after that poll, fifteen Native American scholars collaborated on a critique that stated that there were so many flaws in the Annenberg study that rather than being a measure of Native American opinion, it was an expression of white privilege and colonialism. National public opinion polls consistently find that a majority of the general public support the team's continued use of the name, ranging from 89% in 1992 to 71% in September 2014.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

For some reason I feel like you copied and pasted it and edited it a little bit. But I am more than happy to argue against this.The article contradicts itself. It gives you evidence about why the Native Americans felt un-offended. THEN it tells how this study was biased and did not represent the entire Native American population. If you indeed type this why would you contradict your self and give your opponent evidence to use against you? 2 of the schools that have the name red skins in them are on Native American reserves(you so kindly provided the information to me through your article) They are called this because it does not offend Native Americans to call themselves Red but it's highly offensive when others do. Like someone who needs a diet would call themselves fat and attempt to lose weight. But if someone else called them fat they would be offended but it is totally fine to offend oneself.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I find this unnerving, that u think it is offensive,
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Well that is just you. How you find someone calling you white trash and not even be slightly offended is beyond me. Maybe it's just your character. Just letting you know not everyone feels the same as you, because if someone called me a squinty-eyed asian I might not show it but I would be offended.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

First of all, proper grammar please. That's what I found pretty unnerving. Second, you are even more ignorant than a racist to allow yourself get insulted. Third, you cannot casually say "I don't see why natives would take offense to the term" when it's obvious that you have a very inaccurate point of view from a Native American.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

There have been different opinions about the Redskins and there name and also mascot. Some people say that it is racist and offensive to Native Americans and it should be changed. But I don't not think that it is offensive to the Native Americans.  In the articles and videos I saw, Native Americans said did not mind that the team was named Redskins. The black feet tribe gave the team the name, and if the name offend the tribe, why would they do that? Many of they liked the team it because it was something they could take pride in and enjoy. Some of the people in the videos wished that if people pay them any attention, it would be to help them with there poverty and every day needs, not about a name of a football team. This team has a long history and the Native Americans feel like a part of it and take pride in it because the team represents honer and loyalty, just like the tribe. So I think that if Native Americans think it is ok for the team to have the name and mascot, than we should not change the name or the mascot.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

"It may seem to some that the name is a racial slur, but that count is undoubtedly few. As Brooke Friesen made in her argument citing Megan Kelly, a Fox News reporter, that recently a number of Native Americans were polled and 90% of them answered that the name was unoffensive. Since you believe that history is supposedly on your side, you'll find it interesting that the origin of the term "redskin" wasn't originally a racial slur and still isn't. The origin was referring too the pigments some Indian tribes using time of war as during skirmishes during the Creek War which took part in 1813. Some evidence of this were the Creek Muscogee Indians, also known as Redstick Indians, who used red painted weapons and painted their faces and parts of their body red, which may of contributed to the name "redskin indians". Also, what many people are meaning when they honor the indians with the name is that during the Creek War, "Redstick Indians" attacked Fort Mims, which is located near Mobile Alabama. The Indians defeated the American Troops resulting in a major victory for the Indians, this might cause Americans at the time to start to respect Native Americans of the region and come up with a name to honor them, Redskin. Also, as I have said in my previous statement, if Native Americans truly cared so much about the removal of the name wouldn't they have at least peacefully protested, as they are allowed to since it is their basic right, stated in the Bill of Rights, First Amendment."-j_millan
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

It is actually the Native Americans who created the term, of redskinned men.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

While there are many opinions about the use of the term "Redskins", I believe the term is not being used in a racially offensive way. For example, the team has been named the Redskins since the formation of the team and the present coach is loyal to the name. Another reason why the term Redskins should not be offensive to Native Americans is the name was not chosen to purposely mock Native Americans. In my opinion, the term is also not any more offensive to Native Americans than a Trojan mascot is to Greece or a tiger mascot to animals. Next, I do not think that the use of a Redskins mascot is used in a racially negative way. To conclude, I think having the Washington Redskins as a team name is honoring Native Americans, instead of offending them.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

There is a lot to be said about the origins of the team some fact, some fiction---depending on how you interpret the data. I wrote a long post on the origins of the team name (it's on the board). Could the current owners loyalty to the team be a challenge to his judgement on the name? One thing to note is that words and meaning evolve over time, especially words deemed offensive to ethnic groups---history certainly supports this. Concluding that what once wasn't offensive long ago, can be now. The hiccup here is tribes seem to be split on the topic. Data shows that 30 of the major tribes (including the Oneida, Cherokee, Comanche, and Navajo) are in direct opposition of the term. If one of these tribes deems the term offensive, then we have to look at their reasoning behind "why", because they are the group effected the most. Context wins over all here, and for those it's hurtful for we need to examine their reasoning to understand: a.) The context of the word currently and historically b.) Why it is hurtful or not to them?Thoughts?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The name of the Washington Redskins has been thought racist, but some people think it may be with honor. The name of a team shouldn't be based on what the media wants. The name should be on what the Indians want, and/or what the team wants. After all, the name is based on Indians. Why is the media deciding for the Indians? It isn't fair that the media is taking over the Indians' say.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Over 250 Native American groups, including some of the largest tribes in the country, have all called for the name to be changed.Indians have no preference, as they are brown skinned :P
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The topic still is being argued on, whether or not that the seemingly "racist" name, Washington Redskins, is offensive or not. Many fans and even the owner of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder, says that the name honors the people and the history the name represents. Some activists oppose by saying "the name redskin is a racial slur, making it offensive. One thing is not fully clarified, HOW the name is racist, just because one person or group of people are called a certain color, it does not mean it relates to "idiot" or "stupid".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I agree with how you said skin color does not carry any negative traits
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I think that indian mascots on sports teams should be allowed for several reasons. My first reason is that the sports teams mean no harm when they name their team after native americans. The teams are not specifically making fun of natives in any sort of way. In fact the teams honor the native American culture and respect their practices. My second reason is that the argument that the mascots display native American stereotypesis flawed. The mascots were based of earlier natives before the arrival of Christopher Columbus. It makes no sense that modern day natives would be offended by a stereotype that was based on their ancient ancestors. This is my thesis on native american mascots.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Even if the name was not supposed to be intentionally racially offensive it still is. It should be chaged so it doesn't further cast bad light on the team that they are racist. It DOES make sense why the natives today would be offendedby a stereotype based on their ancestors. Would you not be offended if someone offended your ancestors and used the same stereotype on you? Like if I called your great great great grandpa fat, and now I call you fat would you not be offended? It's basically the sae meaning even over time.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I see your point but it the team name is not meant to be mean in any way. Its not like they are trying to be mean. They just want their name to be the redskins. Besides referring to someone as a skin color has no specific harm in any way even though it may be rude to some. The redskins did not offend their ancestors in any way they just ultimately just shed more light on their ancestors by making it a mascot.the mascot is not offensive at all it makes no negative qualities in fact in makes positive qualities by portraying them as honorable and brave. And your fat argument does not make any sense because my entire argument was to point out the fact that the stereotype was based on their ancestors not their decedents.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So about the mascot. Do you see people walking around in headdress and feathers? No. The name DOES offend people and if the Redskins don't want to seem like a team that offends and prejudices a certain ethnic group they should change the name. Like if your swim team was named something that you don't think is racist but it offends others you would want to change it so people don't think that you are actually racist. It is the same thing just on a larger scale.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

So thats why the stereotype doesn't apply because what you just said. The modern day natives dont wear feathers so the stereotype doesn't apply to them the stereotype apply to a past culture. Besides it depends how many natives are offended. And besides just because you call someone a certain skin color it doesn't mean it carries negative qualities. And remember some natives do enjoy it along with many many fans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Though some people think it's racist, that's just the way people think. When you think about it, how is it racist? Just because of the name? What about all the Indians that support the name? Skin color shouldn't be offensive to anyone, esspically to the media. The name should be the choice of the team and Indians. So far, a lot of indians are alright with this. Also, "being called fat", isn't really racist.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I believe that the redskins should keep their name because it is honor to some Native Americans to have a football team about them. But in my opinion, i think this argument should be decided by Native Americans.According to RedSkinsFacts.org, it Native American chiefs actually call themselves redskin. But isn't it nice to have a football team about your skin color with no other racies having a pro football team about your skin. I know having a football team about your skin is racist, but if you are Native American, you will have bragging rights to say that I have a team about my skin you do not. But overall, I believe that this decision should be up to the Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Washington Redskins are being criticized over the use of their team name. Many Indian groups and other activists want them to change their name so as to not be offensive to the Indian culture. I believe the Redskins should not change their name and mascot. I believe that just because a name becomes less popular as time goes by, it is no reason to be forced to change a name brand in order to please activists. I feel that if a company wants to change their name because it has lost the popular vote, than they are entitled to do so such as Kentucky Fried Chicken is now known as as KFC because "Fried" is considered unhealthy. Nobody forced them to change their name, they just did it to be more healthy sounding. As for the internet websites and posts who are trying to get the owner of the Redskins to change the name brand and mascot because they feel it is offensive and racist. I feel that the name "Redskins" is not a form of racism., it's an observation just like "Black Bear" or "Bald Eagle". We don't hear about a group of balding men blogging about how they want our national bird renamed just because the term "Bald" is offensive to them. Lastly I believe that the Indian mascot is not a form of racism. It should be encouraging to the Indian Nation because it reminds us of the Indian heritage. It is symbolic and should be an honor to be a part of our national sports programs. Other than Indian casinos you just don't hear about Indians much any more. The Indian nation should value the respect that the NFL gives to memory of the Indian culture. Remove the Redskins and the Indian nation will have less public mentions and be closer to being forgotten about.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

If we changed Native American team names because their "racist" shouldn't we have to change ALL teams named after races. Because the whole point of anti-racism is EVERYONE is treated fairly? Everyone is so easily offended these days and it's getting real out of hand. Also, is it even the native Americans that are being offended, or just a non-native American just assuming it would be offensive to them?