azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

This is what you said "Native American LONG AGO reffered to themselves as redmen" I am pretty sure you know that this is NOT "long ago" this is in the present and in the present 94% of people would NOT call someone "red skinned" in their face. Also you said "SOME Indians" Some does not mean all , and does not mean the majority. The majority or 80% believe that it is offensive to their race and who they are. (also I believe Indians are from a country in Asia called India and are not what we are talking about)
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I support and agree with the part where you emphasize that FlyingLeaves mentioned "long ago" and "some."
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Please state your source, because if you remember the video we were watching in class, it said theAt most didn't mind the name, and some were fans because it honored them, and their race
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Why is it that you always request for the source? There always isn't a need for it. Some Native Americans didn't mind the name, some were even fans, but were the majority still offended? Yes.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The term is a hurtful reminder to the Native Americans. You say that some Indians aren't offended, and that's true, but you have to remember that MOST of them are insulted.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

To this point, the term "redskin" was traced by a researcher at the Smithsonian to date back to the early 1700's meaning "proof of Indian kill". Also, the five major dictionary publications consider the term disparaging or a ethnic slur towards Native Americans. One publication did say "may be disparaging". Find one that doesn't.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

To some it does represent this. But understand this, words and meaning change as society evolves. The intention of the origin of the team name is debatable considering the originals owners racist past, so what was his intent? This is the same owner that paraded his Native coach around in a head dress, feathers, and war paint as a gimmick, something today that might be considered offensive. Thoughts?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

How should this be hurtful? They should honor their prominent Indian leaders from the 19th century, not against them! Plus, tell me why you think most of them are insulted. This is supposed to honor the Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Like I have said before, the term is a hurtful reminder. The U.S. were slaughtering them because of the word "redskin" a long time ago. To have that racial slur to remind them of that period hurts and offends them. Maybe it was supposed to honor them, but that doesn't mean that every Native American would be honored because it is racist.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I agree with you, it can be seen as offensive because their was never a tribe named "Redskins".their skin isn't like you said super red like the old mascot. I personally think that you shouldn't be labeling skin colors,it's just plain rude and offensive. As you said the main reasons that this would be offensive is the mascot,team,and the team itself. The mascot is honestly really racsit in my opinion, why would you make the skin really red and give the mascot a huge nose? Then again it is just a cartoon, but they don't have to exaggerate it to the point where it looks unreal and racist.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

should the Redskins change their name? I think the Redskins should change their name because they are putting a racial slur on American apparel,football players' jerseys, their helmets and their hats. Not only is it racist but they are naming a team something that Indians don't want to hear in their everyday lives. Also their logo makes their name look more racist. The Indian on the logo has red skin when really Indians have brownish skin. People have many opinions on this subject and this is mine.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins have been criticized for supporting their controversial mascot. The Native American mascot of the Redskins has been thought to be a racial slur by many people, but according to to Dan Snyder (the head of The Washington Redskins) the name represents pride, respect, and honour . Should his opinion outway the thousands that are offended by this? In 1920, the head of the Washington Redskins, Coach Deeds was said to have chosen the name Redskins to honor his native culture. However, according to federal investigators and several witnesses, Deeds has to Indian blood and that both parents are from German desent. Deeds lied to get out of being drafted for World War 1. Personally, I think he tried to appeal to the public by exaggerating their already inaccurate view of what Native Americans are.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

There has been a continuous controversy regarding the name of a football team, the 'Washington Redskins'. Team owners dispute any racism behind the mascot and insist on not changing it, saying the Redskins name represents honor and a deep history. However many Native Americans and people oppose the name. The term 'redskins' and mascot is considered rather offensive and stereotypical. Some sports identities depict Native Americans with respect and sensitivity, many –like the 'Washington Redskins'– do not.The Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University in San Bernardino surveyed 400 individuals, 98 of them Native Americans, and found that 67 percent of Native Americans agreed the Redskins team name is a 'racial or racist word and symbol'."After 500 years, it's pretty unbelievable that this issue is at the forefront right now," says Jason Begay, a Navajo who's an assistant professor and director of the Native American Journalism Project at the University of Montana. "Even in the last 50 years (of the civil rights movement), we learned so much. It's just ridiculous that this is an issue."While the name should be changed, I’m not completely insensitive to how Redskins fans feel about the topic at matter. "Our fans speak proudly of 'Redskins Nation' in honor of a sports team they love," Snyder wrote in a letter to fans. "After 81 years, the team name 'Redskins' continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come."However, by today's standards, "redskin" is a slang term for Native Americans defined in dictionaries as "usually offensive", "disparaging", "insulting", and "taboo".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins a great team in the NFL, but the debate in media sports and news is growing as the the name is being known as a racial slur. People think that this name can be both offensive and racial. The Washington Redskins mascot/ name should be changed to something less racist and more appropriate.The Washington Redskins name should be changed because it is referring to the skin tone of a ethnicity. Would people say that someone is redskin right in front of there face? The answer is no because about 90% people say that they won't. Also, the original owner said that he was Native American heritage and was a food about that because truly he was German. Also why did the original owner have to be forced to draft a player of other ethnicity. Another thing is that why can't a team name be of another race and that is because it is rude. This concludes my statement.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The debate on whether or not the Redskins should change their name has been raging on for a long time. Activists who think this name is offensive continue to argue with those who believe it represents pride and respect. Many people want the name redskins change because they believe it is an insult to Native Americans including the Hoh Indian Tribe, Penobscot Nation, Samish Indian tribe, NAFOA, Inter tribal Council of Arizona, and many more.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe the name Redskins is insulting because they are being called something they are not. They're not red-skinned warriors, they're just people.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

According to RedSkinsFacts.com, the word "redskins" got created by Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

actually the Redskins name was made by a food. He was said to be Native American but really he was Germain. So why would he lie about his heritage.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

But they were "red, skinned" warriors, and that's why they chose the name, I think, because they were a fierce fighting force.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I personally don't think they should change the name because they are not using it an offensive way. They have also had this name for a long time so I can see why the coach does not want to change it.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So do you think that any word can be used without offensive intent and therefore not be offensive? Like if a team was named after an african american racial slur, but they didn't mean it to be offensive, then it would be okay?"They have also had this name for a long time" That is known as the appeal to history logical fallacy (it has been, therefore it should be).
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I'd say that the natives don't like their ethnic group being used as a mascot and being called "redskins". I wouldn't either. The president of the Redskins says this "honors" the Native Americans. I see no honor in a racial stereotype of your ethnicity being used as a football mascot. I fully agree and say the mascot is nothing more than an offensive racial stereotype! I don't believe the president of the Redskins has the right to say if it's an honor or not for the Native Americans, being German. Native Americans are people, not mascots. Imagine what it would be like if there was a team called the Rhode Island Rednecks or some other particularly offensive sports mascot. For those of you who say they should keep the name, you're mocking thousands of Native Americans of their former warrior heritage. Like I said before, how would like it in their place?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins have had a lot of controversy on their name and even people like the president have said that it's time to consider changing their name so I think that this term can be racist and offensive to Indians. The redskins is like saying Indians having red skin and by how they look, like you wold not call a Chinese person yellow men which is very hurtful to do and is a long history of hurtful mistreatment to native Americans in America it's just a rascal slur to Indians. The ethnic mascots are entwined with there equally offensive team names. So that's why it can have a institutionalized racism on them and this makes it why they have high rates of unemployment, poverty, and more so this racism is helping not focus on the problems like actually helping Indians have a better life. So that's why it's not just all fun and games it has an actual huge impact on us. Although 79 percent of people wanted to keep the redskins named it didn't matter. In a survey 83% of people even said they wouldn't call someone a redskin so if you wouldn't call someone it why even has it as a football name that is hurtful to Indians. Also there are sources that show low these mascots have a serious effect like a study by Chaney turnbuckle found that people do not show there feelings for mascots or the actually living native Americans. Even though Daniel Snyder did what he did to try and get people to like the name and the mascot the original owner wasn't even an Indian like he said he was , he was actually German.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Everyone team has their share of names, but the one that is most talked about is the team the Washington Redskins. People say that this team is racist because of its name "Redskins". But some people says not to because it shows respect. Some people say they should change its name to something a little less racist, but the owner, Dan Snyder, says that he will NEVER change its name. I think that the name Redskins is offensive because some Native Americans don't have red skin, and you're making fun of someone's culture. I think that the name Redskins is offensive because it dosent show respect. I also think it's racist. Some native Americans get offended because some think it's making fun of their culture when some don't care. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It think it is racist because there calling the Native Americans red skinned. But on the other hand, some people think it's not racist. They really don't care or just don't notice. Some people say they are happy with the name Redskins. Some Native Americans are happy with the name and say it is not offensive because it respects them.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe that sports teams mascots are very important to a team. What if your mascot is and Indian with a red face. Is it to be offensive? Is it just for "honor" in the name? No one really knows. Many sports teams have had to change their logo because of people complaining of how offensive it is to their culture. If I were a Native American, I would be offended if I was called a redskin out in public. Dan Snyder the owner of the redskins is saying it is the team name and he is ever going to change it no matter how many people complain. He was told to put a Native American on his team, so that's what he did. Later on, that Native American man died from cancer. Dan asked yet another Native American for his team, but he said no to his face and that he wasn't going to play for someone portraying his own culture. Should the redskins change their name? Your either with me or against me.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe the name Washington Redskins is offensive because it makes the Native Americans seem like they have redskin and act like the fans do. Supporters of the name think this name denotes honor to Native Americans because it shows that the Native Americans were warriors and strike fear into their opponents eyes. To many Native American tribes this name reminds them of defeat in battle because redskin means "the scalped head of a Native American sold like a pelt for money".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So people are debating whether or not the Redskins should change their names. Many people think that it is a racial term but some people think that it is an honor. In my opinion, changing the name is the right decision because I am one of those people who think that the Redskins are a racial term against the Native Americans. I think that it is racist because of the way they wrote it. Redskins is a racial term because Native Americans are not even redskinned at all. Their skin color is brown, so Redskins with a mascot of a Native American does not seem right. If for some reason they do not change the name, it would just lead to thousands of more arguments and debates. But, if they so change the name, maybe all this fighting and arguementing will be over.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

As you know the Washington redskins have been fighting against fans, Native American groups, and lawmakers because their name "redskins". They are finding this name offensive and racists to their race; Native American's. The very first coach that re-named the team named from the "Braves" to the "Washington Redskins" in honor of his Native American race, until sources found out that both his parents were german decedents. I think that this name is very offensive to Native Americans, because it is not true and it is very stereotypical because they don't have red skin. I think the name should be changed to a less hurtful and offensive name. In my own opinion I agree that the redskins should change their name because if you look at from an Native American's point of view they don't have, redskin, and it could be offensive for them. -Kate
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I agree with you because American Indians do not have red skin(unless they have a sunburn...I think, but then it looks pink).
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The name "Redskin" is an offense to people and especially Native Americans. For many years the Native Americans have tried to make Dan Snyder change his team name. Dan Snyder says he interviewed Native Americans and they said they liked the name. Dan Snyder did not do a good job with his poll because it was one tribe. Most Native Americans disagree with the team name they call it offensive and have made a campaign.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

What does "most" mean and how can you assume most natives want it changed
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The fact that SO many of the major tribes in this country have called for it to change is one indication. I mean seriously, the Cherokee, the Comanche, the Oneida, the Seminole, and the National Congress of American Indians all do. The last one alone represents 250 groups! Even the U.S. Patent Office has ruled it to be disparaging!
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

They should change the Redskins name be cause it is a racial slur to native Americans mostly used for killing them to get a bounty.It is just as bad as yellow men or black skins. Would you call a Native American a redskin to their face. In terms would you call someone black in front of them? Do you think that you would like being called a name that involves a racial slur that is offensive to you?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Being called a skin color does not mean that it carries negative qualities
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Actually if you refer to a skin color than that is being racist. Racialism usually or at most of the time keeps negative qualities.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

"Redskins" Yes or No?Would you call a Native American a redskin? I think that I would considered that as an insult. So why would the Washington "Redskins" consider calling themselves that? According to USA Today 1020 people 83% wouldn't call someone redskin to their face. People are making commercials and campaigns to stop against the name, but nothing has changed. On an online site, that Dan Synder created, states that the redskins isn't offensive, but (in my opinion) I think he found fans and asked them to say something good about their favorite team. In an interview he never answered a single question! What does that say to you? Ask me this question, Would you call someone black, white, or brown?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

It's time to let go of the past and get rid of that derogatory name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

In the outburst of the "Washington Redskins", people are aware of the team name, calling it offensive to the Native Americans. The opposing view states that the name represents honor, pride, and respect, but takes no caution that it's a hurtful reminder of mistreatment to the Native Americans, as said by the United Nations. The Social Science Research also declares that the term has severe consequences. Maybe it was never meant to be racist, but it doesn't change the fact that it offends Native Americans. Those who oppose against my opinion of the name having to change do not have the mindset of a Native American. From their point of view, they are offended because the term "redskins" disrespects their culture. Some might even support the team name "Washington Redskins", and we have to respect that they are entitled to that opinion, but do not forget that it is the majority of the Native Americans who are hurt and offended. Today's society classify stereotypes only by their physical appearance, which is wrong because we should be smart enough to know that it may hurt people. Clearly, the Redskins is a racial slur and should be changed by Daniel Snyder.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The redskins name has been around for many years and now people have been debating whether or not the name is offensive. I believe that the name is an honor to have since football teams want their mascots to be tough and amazing warriors. I also believe that it shows that the team takes pride in playing for a team as Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

What if an ethnic group does not want to be viewed as a stereotypical image of a warrior? The days of Native American warriors in battle are over a century ago? I wonder if all the players on the team know half as much as our class does on the subject, so I would contest that they play for the pride of the logo and name related to its historical context. Unfortunately, there isn't a poll of the current players on the team to analyze data. 42% of the entire NFL does think the name should change, that's up considerably from a few years ago.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

But they arent depicted as warriors it was their ancient ancestors so why would you bring that up.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The problem is the Native Americans right now are no longer tomahawk throwing(which they didnt do), horseback riding warriors. They are normal people like doctors, lawyers, and even teachers. When they used to be that, it was during a violent period in American history when they were prejudiced and slaughtered by the U.S. because of racial problems. Having a team name that reminds them of that period isnt very helpful.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

But the so why do they still take offense when the stereotype isnt even based on their generation. Besides they were not slaughtered because of racial problems it was the need for land.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Because it is their ancestry and their culture that is being stereotyped. And Donkeyy, the history of the "noble savage" was CERTAINLY a factor in their slaughter.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Washington Redskins mascot is accused of being racist and a lot of people are saying that we need to change the mascot.I am going to debate against that because the team has had that mascot since the beginning. They should keep their mascot because people are making a big deal about the Washington Redskins but not about other schools and sports teams such as canyon Comanchies or Chicago Blackhawks (NHL).Although 94% say they wouldn't call a native a redskin to their face that's because it's rude but the owner is very kind to natives and has many native fans. That is why they should keep their mascot.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The reason no one is making a "Big Deal" about the canyon Comanches or the Blackhawks is because the don't directly say red skin. Comanches and black hawks are names for tribes but Red Skin is color that generalizes native Americans, It's like calling someone Yellow vs Calling them Asian there is a big difference here.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

But yet calling someone a skin color may be rude, the skin color itelf does not portray any negative qualities
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

But the history of the term as a racial slur certainly does.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

You can't just use the Canyon Comanches and the Blackhawks as an example. There is a high school in Oklahoma called the McLoud Redskins. Nobody is making a "big deal" about that, yet they DID use the term "Redskins" directly.