azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The debate about changing the name "redskins" continues to rage in the media and sports. People say the name is racial and other people say they feel honor wearing the jerseys. One thing is for sure, the Washington Redskins should keep the name and mascot. If the Redskins change their name, they will lose fans, honor, advertising, and players might leave the team, and their name and mascots show bravery to the Native Americans and show honor. Yes the name might be racial but they are not offended in any way. Maybe they like the name and they should because they are getting honored with a name and mascot. They have a freedom of speech and expression to use that name and mascot.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

Have any of you thought about what would be the after fact of the name being changed?The things that would need to be in the works.-Designing new uniforms-creating a new logo-Renovating the stadium-Making new up to date contractsAnd don't even make me mention about the fan gear. So many of the people with old Redskin fan gear, would have to either buy New Jerseys and other fan gear, or they could keep the old fan gear, and root for an nonexistent team.Here is a paragraph from a news article:The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, the team moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fen way Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. Co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe someone who has been offended for some time now and still must live with the name "Redskins" while trying to enjoy their favorite sport and the enjoyment of the viewer Is substantially more significant than prices to change a few logos and uniforms.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

Many conflicts have risen in the past years about changing the name of the Washington Redskins. Supporters who say that the team should keep the name while the protester view this as a opportunity to convince the owner (Dan Snyder) to change the name. For sure one thing Dan Snyder will not change his team's name. I agree with Mr. Snyder not to change the name.According to redskinsfacts.com this team name Redskins show the noble qualities about a Native American. The qualities are honor, respect, courage, and more. This team have a strong tradition and history behind the name. Some Native Americans had protested that this was offensive to their kind, but other Native Americans was proud of the Washington Redskins. Those Native American have been cheering on the Redskins saying that this problem didn't bother them at all. I say focus on the team not the name.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

Could you demonstrate how using a racial slur demonstrates "honor, respect, courage, and more" please? And if some Native Americans find it offensive, as you have said, then what is the justification continuing to use a racial slur that exploits an oppressed culture for what is essentially commercial gain?
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The name the redskins is not offensive it is just using the descriptive word red. Native Americans have called Caucasians whiteman and nobody takes that in an offensive way. Is the opposing side just offended by anything that is not white.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The discriptive word red alone is not offensive, but the word redskins is. Also people are not just calling native Americans redskins it is a football team of the NHL.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Washington redskins is a football team with a very controversial name. The debate over the name change has been going on for very long time. Many people believe that the Washington's redskins name is a racial slur but i believe it is not.   This is because the meaning of racist is diminishing a persons respect for that person and his culture after hearing the name redskins and watching them play, nobody will think less of them. On the contrary people will think more of them because the football connects them to society, popularizes them, and shows the redskins are not being discriminated from anything. which brings honor to the Indians knowing they can participate in anything they choose too. For example an redskin who watches a game will think that since the Washington redskins are not discriminated all redskins are not discriminated which is true. 90% of Indians don't care about being called a redskin. I understand that the name is defined in the Websters dictionary as a racial slur it simply doesn't offend a big majority of native Americans and if people still source a dictionary for why the name is offensive then the dictionary should change their definition of a redskin.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

I think the Washington Redskins should not change because first of all the Redskins logo in use today was first designed in 1971 in close consultation with Native American leaders according to Redskins facts. They got the acceptance to have that mascot by a Indian and a native made the mascot himself according to according to Redskins facts. Also many native Americans think it is a racial slur by calling them redskins but many also like being represented in that way because they like wearing the jerseys, going to the games, and watching the games based on videos of natives opinion on it. Also they admire the Redskins because of of all their Nobel qualities and they want the players to play with the same quality as the Indians acted as which is honor, loyalty, unity, respect, and courage according to the history of the logo on Redskins facts.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Washington Redskins have been a football team for 83 years. Many fans show pride and honor in their favorite team, yet others think that the name "Redskins" is insulting to Native American. Many people started a debate to change the name of the Washington Redskins football team. The Redskins is clearly a football name representing a team and not wanting people to take it the wrong way and think that they are trying to insult the Native Americans.Dan Snyder should have a right to not change the name of the Redskins. In 2014, a man by the name of Don Wetzel, son of Walter Wetzel, commented "It needs to be said that an Indian from the State of Montana created that [Redskins] logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it's something to be proud of.” I very much agree with this comment because if they use it with pride and honor and showing respect for the Indians why do they still feel insulted? Another document stated that "Indian leaders of the 19th century are documented as referring to themselves "Red Men" or "Redskin". This is proving that we should have the right to leave the team name of the Washington Redskins alone and not change it. On a website Dan Snyder created,he writes "Here at RedskinsFacts.com, we’re thinking football fans. We’re passionate about the game, and even more passionate about the “Burgundy and Gold.” None of us believe in offending or discriminating against people of any ethnicity for any reason. We believe the Redskins name deserves to stay. It epitomizes all the noble qualities we admire about Native Americans—the same intangibles we expect from Washington’s gridiron heroes on game day. Honor. Loyalty. Unity. Respect. Courage." So many people take it the wrong way like Jim Heins, wrote that "The Change the Mascot campaign continues to gain momentum as an ever-growing national chorus speaks out against the team’s offensive and derogatory name." It is just a team name and should be in no way offensive to the Native Americans. If anything, the name is being shown with pride and respect and so many people are wearing the jerseys and if you change the name of a famous football team, most likely the tradition will be broke.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Personal Experience, what can I say? People who are competitive get there. That's what it takes. "What it takes" is essential for success. You need the killer instinct. Or connections, which is a form of cheating, and cheaters aren't nice. Therefore, nice guys [or girls!] never win.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

Connections are a form of cheating?Would you consider someone who cheats on their taxes, but gives the money they save to kids with a cancer as not nice?
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

ALSO, giving money to save kids with cancer is a nice thing... done by an obviously nice person... but a cheater.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Of course not! But that's completely irrelevant. Why bring cancer children into this?? Just, why? I DONATED TO CANCER CHILDREN, thank you very much. So don't go there. =]
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"But that's completely irrelevant. Why bring cancer children into this?? Just, why?"- how is that irrelevant at all? Just because I used children with cancer as a part of my example? Is there something wrong with that? Its not like I said anything bad about them, so why does it matter? Maybe you are just ignorant enough to look over my point and try to make it seem like I was insulting children with cancer."I DONATED TO CANCER CHILDREN, thank you very much. So don't go there."- don't go where? I didn't say anything bad about them you fucking idiot.The point that you obviously weren't smart enough to see was that cheaters can be nice people. Please don't give me another ignorant response.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

I'm saying, don't use cancer children as an example. Yeah, I guess someone could donate to them by cheating, and you're right, that does make them nice. It doesn't make them win, though. And no... you misunderstood me. I'm not here to get personal... please don't call me a 'fucking idiot'. I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children. I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point. I'm sorry that you're able to guiltlessly say 'you obviously weren't smart enough to...' I guess you're not one of the nice guys! =] Touche, cheaters can be nice people, but even if they are cheating with their money for a good cause, that money is taken from someone else who earned it. Whenever anyone steals, someone is being gypped of something that they own.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

It doesnt matter if they win or not. You said that cheaters aren't nice and I gave you an example of how they were nice."I wasn't inferring that you said something bad about cancer children."- if I didnt say anything bad about them, then what is the problem with using them as an example?"I was saying don't make it seem like I'm not involved or whatever you were trying to say... but that's not the point. "- what does that have to do with anything we are talking about? It seems like you are just trying to tell people that you help children with cancer. Like you want the credit for it or something."I guess you're not one of the nice guys"- im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence."that money is taken from someone else who earned it"- technically that isnt true because they earned the money, they just aren't giving it to the government to use.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Ok. {I'm typing this for the second time because it just got deleted. >:-0! }1) It does matter if the win or not. The agrument is called "Nice guys never WIN". 2) I wasn't saying at all that you were talking bad about cancer children. I was saying that you shouldn't have used them as an example because EVERYONE pities people with cancer, and it's kind of a given that those who can donate to them will, or want to. It's like a guilt-trip weak spot. So of course I have to agree with you that it's nice to donate to them, but whether it's nice or not, it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be. It is stealing, because they owe that money to the government or wherever it's going to, while everyone else is coughing up all they can to get there... 3) Sure. Credit is nice, because I feel that it was a nice cause to donate to. BUT, I didn't bring it up for credit, I was bringing it up because you said whatever you said about them in such an accusatory way that I felt you were accusing me of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating. 4) "im not nice to people who make wild claims backed with inconclusive evidence." Well. I try and be open-minded when someone else given their opinion, and not call them "Fucking idiot"s just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying, or that they don't think EXACTLY like ME. I try and see what they mean, and if I don't agree, I'll agree to disagree and move on =] 5) Thinking back... you're the one that made wild claims with really no point behind them. Let's say you were right, that people who take money out of their taxes to donate to cancer children are nice, and they're not cheating in any way. Sure, so that disputes one of my points, but what does that say for your side of the argument? It says that nice people can be cheaters, but... "NICE GUYS NEVER WIN" ... do they win? Donating to cancer children is an act of kindness to others, so yeah, they get the satisfaction that they did something, but who's winning here? ... The nice guys who now have tax debt?
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

1) We weren't talking if they would win or not. I was telling you that you were wrong when you said nice guys couldn't be cheaters.2) Using a child with cancer in a example, keeps me from pitying them? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. "it's wrong to take money or not pay it where it needs to be"- so if a child needs an organ transplant or they will die, and they cant afford it, its wrong for someone to rob a bank for the money? Oh right, should i have not used a sick child as an example?3) I was explaining that the guy was nice for donating. How could that translate into me accusing you "of not being someone who would understand that kind of donating. " ? Either you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly, or you just wanted people to know that you donate to children with cancer. You choose.4) "just because I don't agree with or understand what they're saying"- i understand what you are trying to say, but what you are saying doesnt make sense. It wasnt just because I didnt agree with you.5) We were never discussing if they could win or not. We were arguing on whether or not a cheater could be considered a nice person. In my opinion, by donating to children with cancer, they do win. They have tax debt because they donated to a higher cause.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Ok, are you arguing just to argue? Because it seems like you're frantically searching for details to critique, because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning. [I'm going by your number system]2) I actually don't remember what my 'logic' was, but OF COURSE it's wrong to do that! Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions. That's not their money to use. If they want to use their own money to donate, fine, but there is no excuse for robbing a bank for it. What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue? Then you'd be saving the cancer patients, but you may have just killed someone else, by taking away money where it was needed to save another life. Nice going, nice guy! 3) I choose neither, thanks. Go back and read what we said, with my comment in mind. It'll make sense to you. I couldn't figure out really how to word it, but you made some kind of offensive comment. So I was on the defense.. I didn't know how to explain it any better. But do you kind of get what I'm saying? 4) ... Ok, thanks for saying "I understand what you are trying to say". I now have some belief that you're a real person with ACTUAL feelings, but honestly, I don't even remember what I was saying at that point in the argument, and I'm too lazy to go check. :) 5) Ok sure. That makes enough sense. I was just pointing out that that doesn't really secure the ARGUMENT too much, "Nice guys never win" (but I guess that depends on your interpretation of winning).
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

[Changed my mind- just looked at #4]4) Oh, ok. Whatever, I guess... I get what you're saying now, but why? Why did you have to call me that?
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"because you could easily give in to an argument that I'm obviously winning."- im not sure its obvious that you are winning at all, but im arguing with you because you are being irrational."[I'm going by your number system]"- are you an idiot? I numbered my statements because i could easily keep track of yours.1)?2) "Robbing a bank is robbing someone, which is wrong. No matter the intentions."- you really have to look at it from more than one angle. "What if the bank company had a family involved that had some other great medical issue?"- the money would be insured, but that would also be an exception.3) "I couldn't figure out really how to word it"- so you are choosing that you weren't smart enough to interpret it correctly? Saying that you donated to children with cancer had no relevance to this debate. How could you even think that I was somehow trying to attack you for not donating to children with cancer? It doesn't make sense at all.4) Why is it such a big deal? Are you really that sensitive? I called you it because its true.5) What would you consider to be more important: paying your taxes or donating to sick children?
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Lol. I guess it wasn't just me who gets you all butthurt.You'll never win an argument on this topic.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

Its funny that you say that since the FALSE side is winning this argument. Lol, you're an idiot.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

LOL @ USING OPINION POLLS AS A MEANS TO DETERMINE YOUR STANCE!!!It's funny how you say wikipedia is flawed because anybody can post anything they want on it but how using the same technique on CD it is not flawed.TBH it doesn't matter what you say. As I said earlier.. you'll never win an argument on this topic.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

.............P.S.....IF SOME SICKO TOUCHED YOU AS A KID kinda,THEN GET HELP!. Stop punishing everyone else for something that happened to you.We didnt do any thing to you.Homosexuals did nothing to you.And while your at it ,wiki "arshole" and check yourself out.Yes i been following you about on CD, i like picking on Bullies.I believe bullies are the reason why fuck all people enjoy coming here and its the reason why fuck all people stick about. So yeh at this stage i dont know if nice guys never win,(your still here) but i guess in time i (im still here too) will find out.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

lol wtf do you listen to yourself??IM the one with my head lodged up my ass.... sigh..
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

yeah i do.... it can be kinda creepy........sigh...but im not listening to you and you anymore , so i guess as boring as it is , i got nothing more to say so , .
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

FFFIIINAAALLLYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!! You get it. Leave me alone. Thank God. Woman.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

yes I AM WOMAN ......so i get to have the last word...........................................word.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"LOL @ USING OPINION POLLS AS A MEANS TO DETERMINE YOUR STANCE!!!"- lol your just mad because i really am winning here."It's funny how you say wikipedia is flawed because anybody can post anything they want on it but how using the same technique on CD it is not flawed."- im not taking comments from createdebate as points of reference. Im not using it as a source. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source as well. Once again, you're an idiot, stop trying."you'll never win an argument on this topic"- lol, too bad for you, i am winning.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol. Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy. Check mate btw.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"You're using the polling on CD as your reference. lol."- im using the score because if some people read our arguments, they will vote for the side that is supported by the person that they agree with. Obviously, you weren't smart enough to figure this out."Don't worry your stupidity won't let you ackowledge your contradictions and hypocrisy."- hey you actually attempted at insulting me without calling me some elementary school name. Maybe you are learning from your mistakes."Check mate btw."- its not check mate until you insult successfully and/or you prove me wrong. Sorry, but you haven't achieved these things yet.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how?Face it. You use whatever suits you best. On this website people are able to come onto a debate and upvote/debate no matter how much they know or don't know about the subject. Same as wikipedia.Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone. Hmmm... THAT obviously makes it a completely neutral argument.It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise. Wankstain.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"Wait so people inputting their opinion is different from wikipedia how?"- its not different and i never said that it was different."Even worse is the fact that it's you and dacey downvoting and upvoting everyone."- i havent downvoted or upvoted anyone. There is only one comment on the right side, the false side, that is above 1 point. That obviously makes it a completely fair argument. Stop making excuses."It was check mate. I just had to point out how it is check mate because you're too stupid to realise."- its impossible to realize something that hasn't occurred."Wankstain."- i actually thought that you grew out of your old ways, but once again you fail to surprise.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: True

its not different and i never said that it was different.Wait. What was that? You admit defeat. When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count (which all of a sudden isnt flawed) even though the same techniques are used for both. Now you just admitted it. You admitted your contradiction. :) -> I repeatedly have to show you check mate. And being as continuously stupid as you are... you can't see it.
Debate: NICE GUYS NEVER WIN?
Side: False

"its not different and i never said that it was different."- how is that admitting defeat at all? lol, you are so fucking stupid."When I post a wikipedia as a source you say that its flawed... but you want to prove you're on the right side by looking at the poll count"- those are two completely different things, which you obviously couldnt see. Wikipedia is flawed as a source because its full of incorrect or biased information. The poll count shows who is supported by the majority. It is a display of support for information, possibly unbiased, introduced by separate sides."I repeatedly have to show you check mate. "- you show me check mate? Does it even make sense to say it that way? You are such an idiot.