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

How did they use it correctly. You just expressed that the term "R-word" was derogatory and racist. Isn't it the same either way you put it?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I'm sorry, OregonDUCKS, but who did you give that comment to? I don't know, sorry for my mistake.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The Mcloud team has been a resource in this debate, and used by the professional team as evidence that tribes in that area don't mind it. That said, over 30 different major tribes (Cherokee, Comanche, Ottawa, Oneida, and Navajo to name a few have provided direct opposition of the name.).
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Redskins is an official NFL name that many people think is a bad racial name. Are You against the name? I don't think the term Redskins is offensive and this is why.The Redskins is a name that was created after a tribe. It was created in the 1930s when many of the names of professional teams were tribe names, and the Indians agreed to letting them use it. I don't think it is racial because, if the people that others think are being mistreated are okay with it I think it is fine. Also the mascot of the Redskins is supposed to mainly represent bravery and honor. Those are good descriptions so I think if anything the name is okay.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

When it was created in the 1930s other teams were using the name but today many teams have changed it to less offensive names the Redskins should follow in suit. Now the only tribe that is letting any team use their name is the Seminoles in Florida. To a majority of Native Americans it is racist, one example is the entire Oneida tribe that runs a website against it. (ChangeTheMascot.org) Just because you don't think it's offensive doesn't mean it isn't. (I say this because you don't have any evidence for your point and I just said earlier that "the people that others think are being mistreated" or Native Americans actually DO feel mistreated, they even go as far as calling the Redskins the "R-Word" So I disagree with your argument.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins was not named after a tribe, or a tribe in itself. There has never been a tribe called "redskins". The team was supposedly named after their first coach (see post below). Did you know the original owner of the team made the coach dress in native attire (paint and feathers included) on game day?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I completely agree with you. The Redskins mascot for the team was made to honor these Native Americans. They were in no such way to offend this race and people are being too sensitive about this subject. Also, these prominent Indian leaders of the 19th century like Sitting Bull, French Crow, and Temcumseh, have been documented as referring to themselves as "Red-skins". This is why I think it should be left alone. Check www.redskinsfacts.com for anyone who is against me.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

According to the 'Outside the Lines' video and a 1933 Washington Post article, the origin of the name "Redskin" has been highly contested. Proponents of keeping the name claim that the name represents honor. But to whom is it honoring? It is said by many, current Washington owner Dan Snyder included, that the name "redskin" was named by then owner, George Preston Marshall as a way of "honoring" the Native American players on the team, most notably, an honor bestowed upon the coach William "Lone Star" Dietz. William "Lone Star" Dietz claimed Indian heritage, however history suggests he fabricated his Indian heritage to avoid being drafted into the World War I. A fact that has been substantiated by court records from the early part of the 20th Century. This certainly takes a new turn when referring to the current argument who say the name is about "honor". Former owner, George Preston Marshall is quoted in a 1933 Associated Press Article as saying, "The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins." His words, and they certainly refute Daniel Snyder's assertion about "honoring the past", making his comments baseless and false. So, was the original naming of the team about "honoring" the history of the team, or simply a marketing agenda by a documented racist coach, who once openly admitted he would not draft an African-American player because he wanted to market his team to the Southern states? He liked the logo, like the name, and wanted it to be distinct from the name "Braves" which was their baseball counterpart in the city (for the marketability of his team I assume)? Who exactly is this "honoring"? The name of a team, not Native American tribes is clearly what is only "being honored".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Personally I don't really think the Redskins football team needs to change their name. I believe this because they are not using it in a way to offend people. This name is also been an old name that this team has always used. But I would never go and call a Native American a redskin because I do not agree with racism. Now if I saw the team start using this name a an offensive name I would begin to argue against it. So this argument can really go both ways. But I don't think they need to change the name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Well I do agree that the team wasn't named to be racist, it's just that nowadays people are wising up and more sensitive. And besides, it's their culture and they should've been asked permission to use the name "Redskins". And since they are offended, the name should be changed.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Words morph into different contextual meaning(s) over time. The term "redskin" has been around for 300 years. Perception and definition certainly aids in the way the word is treated by some today.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Even if they aren't intentionally offending people doesn't mean they aren't. Many Native Americans DO feel offended by the name Red Skins. Even though it is an old name maybe back when it was created it wasn't offensive to people ,but these are NEW times and today it is hurtful to many Native Americans even if it wasn't intentional.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

But, it was also a term to HONOR the Native Americans. How are these the "NEW times"? Most Native Americans have stayed the same, but with a little bit of technology put in. Nothing much has changed for the Indians. Are you supposing that somehow the Native American's minds suddenly evolved so differently?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

No, media has evolved. Media is much more diverse nowadays, now pretty much everyone knows recent news.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I disagree, a whole bunch has changed. Education, jobs, recognition, restitution, and so on. Do a bit of research on the progress Native Americans have made as a minority group in America. You'll find the the evolution of thinking is clearly present...maybe the Native Americans supporting the name haven't evolved yet? Thoughts?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Well if it was intended to honor the Native Americans it certainly didn't. Native Americans everywhere are offended by this racial slur and minds have changed. Back when the team was created we didn't think about texting Charlie after a frappucino at Starbucks and after that relax on the couch and Instagram your followers. Life wasn't was easy before and minds have evolved to think about the things we think about today. It's no longer honorable and it isn't the 1900's anymore.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

You bring up a distinction that I do not understand. You imply that the term redskin is racist, yet you say they are not using it to offend people. But if it is indeed racist, isn't their using it racist, and therefore offensive? If the term is indeed racist (and therefore offensive), doesn't it follow that the use of that term is racist? And of course if it is racist (and offensive), then why should they not change the name?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

This is the logical thing, and we all know that the name won't change because it will just cause disruption in the NFL, and get unwanted, and unneeded attention
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So what if the NFL receives unnecessary attention for changing a name and goes into disruption? It has to be changed anyway, because the team name consists of a racial slur that most of the Native Americans wouldn't want.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Okay, can you tell me all the names of the tribes that do want the name to be changed, and state your sources. Most likely you can't. The truth is that it isn't intended to be a racial slur, and you cannot prove that it was intended to be offensive.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

A term does not need to be intended to be offensive in order for it to be offensive. If one uses a racial slur, it is offensive regardless of intent.http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/07/us/washington-redskins-name/ http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Local-Tribes-Want-Redskins-to-Change-Name-263914721.html To list just two examples.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I never said that it was meant to be offensive. I only said that it could have been intended for honorary purpose, BUT it was still seen as an insult, racial slur, etc., and that it isn't much to do something as simple as change a name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

One thing is for certain, despite any attention this receives, financially, the NFL is a thriving entity. A multibillion dollar business, regardless of the controversy. Revenue is up, despite the push to change the name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Washington Redskins been debating racism since 1972 and many people have put the pressure on Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins to change the names and the mascot of the team. Back in the 20th century the name Redskins was used as the skin color of the Indians, but in today's standards many people in Washington think it is an honor to have there football team named after the natives. I think that the Redskins as a name for a football team is not Racis or rude. I do see how the name Redskins could be determined to be offensive. Many Native Americans might feel as though it represent a shameful time in history.The other side of the argument could be made that Redskins represents strength, courage, and team unity. And you would not name your team after something you hated or disliked, you would name it after something that is powerful and strong like the Indians. For the Redskins fans, who grew up watching the Redskins play, it is the childhood memory with their dads on football Sundays that they want to keep forever and would not be the same it they change the name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

"Redskins" may be just a football team name, but do not forget the fact that it is still a racial slur. If long-term Redskins fans will stay devoted to the team, they should be willing to let a name change. It may be a loss for the fans, but it shouldn't be that much of a catastrophe because then the Native Americans wouldn't be offended by the racist term of "redskin."
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Scence the beginning of Washington football history, the NFL team name has been the, Redskins. The name has always been the Redskins and shouldn't be changed. The name isn't trying to offend anyone because it refers to the great warrior, the Indians. The name was picked because Indians were a fierce and strong fighting force when they went to battle. Playing the game is the "Battle" that the players "fought" in. The Indians were great on using there surroundings in the wild, and it was thought that the name would imply that the offense and the deffense will be aware of any trick plays, fumble, or interceptions. The Indians were alert, and Washington wanted a name that would strike fear into the eyes of their opponents.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Do you know what Redskins originally referred to? The blood scalps used as proof when collecting a bounty on a native American.Are you really going to claim that is an acceptable name? When you have a group of people in this country who are incredibly offended at the fast that a professional team is named after their slaughtered ancestors, you are really going to go with the "appeal to history" logical fallacy (it has been, therefore it should be)? Seriously, it would take VERY little to change the name, and it wouldn't do any harm, while keeping the name is a constant reminder to Native Americans how much their history and culture is abused in this country. Do you REALLY think it is worth it?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Actually, I DO think it is worth to keep this mascot. It is supposed to be a honorary name, not some type of RACIAL slur. Also, even in the 19th century, prominent Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, French Crow, and Temcumseh were documented as calling themselves the "Redskins", or "Red Men".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

As I have said in earlier posts the past is in the past and now is the present. In the past you had Native Americans calling themselves Red men but today they are offended by that. Today the Native Americans want to change the name from Redskins to something else. Today it IS a racial slur in a racist team founded by a racist owner.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Your argument is invalid because you keep forgetting that it still insults Native Americans. It IS a racial slur even though it was meant to be an honorary term.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

You're full of energy aren't you. The 19th Century was a long time ago. What the past has shown in history is that words change. Meanings change. African-American slaves, freedmen, and Caucasians during the same time period you mention used language referring to African-American skin color that in today's world is deened repulsive. Prominent leaders of the time, presidents included, used these same words. Do we look at Lincoln in anger or reverence? Or, have we evolved from the past regardless of who the individuals were (like Sitting Bull), and understand that this is simply a different time and place and are looking at making progress. Thoughts?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

If the name intention was to show that Native Americans were strong, warriors, etc. then the name should be changed to something like Native warriors or something that does not refer to the skin color of a race of people.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

What I believe no one is getting is that football names are named after an animal, or a strong fighting force; ex, Patriots, Bengals, Raiders, Broncos. They are named after strong and powerful things. They are not meant to be a racial slur or anything like that.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

It really doesn't matter if they were "meant" to be or not, the term redskin is a universally offensive term regardless of theory of origin.And how are the "Fighting Irish" a "strong fighting force"?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I agree with whoever you are, as I have said before even IF the racism wasn't intentional it still hurts people and so if it wasnt intention than they should change it to make it seem that it isn't their intention to hurt others,
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Adding to my argument, if the Washington, Redskins changed there name what would it be, it would mean that the franchise would have to remodel the stadium, design New Jersey, make new contracts, and the merchandise, people don't want to have to buy new fan gear. Like me I have almost my whole room is Patriots and Oregon Duck gear, if they changed there name that would mean that the team would not exist, and I would need to get new fan gear.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So we shouldn't stop offending one of the most persecuted ethnicity in the history of the Western world because you don't want to buy new merchandise.I'm sorry, but do you listen to yourself?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I have to disagree with you because not all names of sports teams are a strong fighting force. If you say that the Redskins is a fighting that is not true. The redskins name is actually not a tribe.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Unlike the team symbols we were talking about in class, the Washington Redskins symbol is an honorable Native American. He is wearing eye paint that was worn in battle. I personally do not think that the name of the team is a racial motive.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The term "redskin" is not honorable in the least bit. Not a single theory regarding the origin of the term redskin has it meaning anything positive.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The term "redskin" can be honorable, because it can represent a strong force, in this case the Indians are the strong force. Also many Native American schools call themselves the "Redskins." To them it represents honor and respect.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Before I address anything else in that comment, can you cite some Native American schools with the term redskins?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The team name was created for a RACIST team who didn't let in African Americans and created by a man who said he was racist and publicised his racism, and your saying it wasn't meant to be racist? Also the name is highly offensive to many Native Americans so even IF it wasnt meant to be racist it certainly is. The logo isn't bad though.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I can see where you are coming from. Well the racist owner didn't create the team, he bought it, and if he was such a big racist don't you think he would have not drafted Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The owner, Mr. Marshall, was a well-documented racist. History has defined this with fact. He would have his coach, who he claimed he named the team after, dress in Native clothing, war paint, and a feather for every game. Gimmicky for sure, but is it any different than the Seminole mascot at Florida State? It's not the coach, but the concept is similar.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Also, the new owner of the Washington Redskins was NOT racist. We're talking about 2014, not back when the team just started.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

The man who was racist to blacks was not racist to native americans, theres a difference. Redskins was never meant to be racist
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Never? Considering the history of the term as a racial slur, it's hard to say that the term redskins was never meant to be racist. Unless you meant using it as a team name, but still, using a racial slur and not intending to be racist is a bit silly, because it still is racist.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

Many thoughts have been formed towards the Washington football mascot. So are for and some are against. Some native Americans say that the mascot is offensive and that the team should change it, but the teams owner says that it represents honor and strength. The Florida State Seminoles actually asked the Native American tribe to use the Seminole name and mascot, but the Washington Redskins did not. Maybe because the team did not ask to use the name and mascot they might think it has very little to do with respect and much to do with slang. Redskinsfacts.com says that "The name should stay because it epitomizes all the noble qualities we admire about native Americans". The website also sates that "The mascot represents honor, loyalty, unity, respect, and courage". I do believe with evidence from the video first period watched in class that the owner was very biased in his opinion leading me to believe that the redskins mascot and team name is slang and that the owner was just trying to keep the team name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

So basically you are saying that the name epitomizes(a perfect example of) noble qualities of Native Americans, and here I am looking at the name which only describes one quality of Native Americans: That their skin is Red. So are you saying that the name is a perfect example of Native Americans because it says they are Red? Also how does the name Red skins represent Honor, Loyalty, Unity, Respect, and courage?
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

So, if the team name was so bad, and had so many supporters, don't you think the NFL would have made the owner change the name? Kind of how they took away their stadium when that one manager wouldn't draft and African Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

That's because the NFL cannot force the president of the team to change the mascot, which he has declared never to.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The NFL is for the name. The NFL won't make them change the name.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The NFL Commissioner and Dan Snyder are standing by the name, so of course the NFL wouldn't be making him change the name unless sponsors got involved. Regardless, they should do as little as change a name that could make things less pressuring on them.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

What would be the point of changing the name? That would just bring financial problems, and the stadium would have to go under construction, which is way more expensive then you would think.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

"What would be the point of changing the name?" As has been told to you before, to stop unnecessarily offending the most persecuted ethnic minority in U.S. history by exploiting their history and employing an ethnic slur. The amount of construction that would occur is minor compared to the profits the franchise brings in, so let's not pretend this is some massive issue.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

By the way, techincally, it CAN become a massive issue. It can lead to SO many problems, like OregonDUCKS said. You never know what happens. You can't predict the future.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Changing the name would only help in the profits of the team. It currently does not have a copyright on any of it;s products making them vunerable for small companies to copy the products sell them for a lower price and leech all the profits from the team. In the longrun this will make the team less profitable. Although it is true we never will know what happens statistics can be used to predict the future.