azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The Redskins team name definitely needs some changing. There are multiple reasons to support this idea. One, this word is actually defined, by a dictionary as a racial slur aimed at Indians. If someone used a racial slur offending your race wouldn't you be a little offended by it? Secondly, you wouldn't call someone this to their face, so why can you put it on your football team? A poll was taken on the question of "would you call someone a redskin to their face?", 83% of the people say no meaning they think they would most likely offend someone by calling them that, and if they get offended by saying it to their face, imagine thousands of people in one stadium all chanting it at once. The bottom line is this name needs to be changed.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

Some people believe that the "Washington Redskins" name is offensive to Native Americans. Do you think that the "Washington Redskins" should consider changing their name? I got one piece of evidence from http://www.changethemascot.org. I think that the "Washington Redskins" should consider changing their name because it's offensive to Native Americans.The word "redskins" is a racial slur, but the people who don't want the "Washington Redskins" to change their name believe that it means to honor to their culture, but why use a word that racially offensive? Also, in addition to the lack of respect to Native American culture a recent statistic shows that 72% of NFL fans who want to keep the mascot, would not use the term "redskin" when speaking to a Native American. So, that shows that even part of society believes that the term "redskin" is offensive and disrespectful to their culture.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

I am for changing the name of the Washington Redskins. I think it is not right or politicly correct . Do you think the "Washington Redskins" should consider changing their name?Many native Americans are a fended by the name redskins. The argument is that many tribes think it is honorable,but that fact is that the name is usually the name of the tribe not the race of the people,so what I thought was that it is a good idea to change the name,because if it was changed it would not be offensive to anyone else. There are many Indian groups that are making a stand to the Redskins name, the Indians go to the games and protest.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The heated argument about changing the names of racial team slurs is still going on, so should they change their team names?People are looking into this and are supporting the side of changing racial team names such as the "Washington Redskins.The owner Dan Snyder says that his teams name goes back in history and he wont change the name.People that dont agree say that the team name honors and shows the history of the Native americans. The term Redskin is a reference to the color of a persons skin. So how could this term possibly honor and give the history of Native Americans? If the definition of Redskin is looked up it is most commonly found as a offensive slur.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins have been a football team for years now, and people always tell them to change their team name. I agree with the people who say that the Washington Redskins should change their team name because it is a disgrace to Native Americans in the United States of America. The Washington Redskins have been playing games for many years, and by football history, the Washington Redskins lost the 1936, 1940, 1943, and 1945 Championship Games, and also lost Super Bowls 6 and 17. Think about this in your head. Imagine your race is used in a football team. At first you may think that it will be a honor to your people, but that team keeps losing continuously in many championships and even Super Bowls! You would probably think that this team is making fun of you. David Snyder doesn't answer some questions about his team when he is asked by social media. It seems as if he is keeping something from people. Also in their team song, Hail the Redskins, the term "hail" is used to say things to kings and queens. Are the Redskins trying to make us worship them? Because when people worship kings, they always shout things like "Hail Caesar!" Or "Hail King Darius!" I personally think that the Redskins are thinking that they are royal kings to can make people do their bidding. Native Americans do not have kings. They have tribe leaders, but not kings. We must respect the people's opinions, so Most Native Americans and I say to change the Washington Redskin's name.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

I think that the Redskins name is offensive and should be changed. I think that it is a very offensive term to native Americans all throughout the country. The term "redskins" is an offensive racial slur that makes native Americans think that they are being offended by the color of their skin.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

You gave no reasoning of why you believe it is offensive. You just kept repeating yourself saying that it is offensive
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

You gave no information or examples explaining how you know they find it offensive. The name is just for football. There's not reason they should change it just becasue a few people find it offensive
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

Where is exactly is the proof that comes with your argument to validate it?
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

What do you find offensive about the color of their skin? I am not offended by the color of Native Americans skin or anyone else's skin color for that matter.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The name is fine. I am not affended because it is just a mascot and not used for any other reason besides representing them.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The term "redskin" is not "just" a mascot. It is a reference to the skin color of Native Americans. As someone with Native American heritage, this term does not represent me.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

You might not be affended because the term redskins was not directed towards you.Many other people such as the Indians might be affended because they are talking about them selves.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

This is a very biased answer since you haven't been born as a Native American and there are very different situations of how many people live.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The debate over the change of the Washington Redskins name has been raging on for many years. Many people can agree that the Washington Redskins football team has a name that is a racial slur. Me along with many others can agree that it is a racial slur that is offensive to most Native Americans. It wouldn't hurt for them to change their team name because of studies that show college teams that have changed their names and mascots show that doing so can have a long-term financial benefit. Proof that people are starting to change their minds about the team name is that recent sales of Redskins merchandise has shown a decline of 35%.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

You didn't provide any evidence for the term being a racial slur except for the undocumented evidence that they're sales are going down, which if proven could be the fact that they aren't as good of a football team.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

The Washington Redskins, a football team, have been pressured by the public to change their name. People who agree with this say that the name is a racial slur, while opponents say that the name is just that: a name. However, I believe that no matter how you look at it, the name is offensive to Native Americans and is a racial slur. Additionally, they should change it for business purposes too, as they could gain valuable Native American fans.First of all, the name is offensive to Native Americans and is a racial slur because the owner is a known racist, being forced to draft African Americans onto his team. Secondly, a recent study by the California State University, San Bernadino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist, so you can't argue that the Native Americans were okay with the name. In conclusion, I think that the Redskins should change their name because it is racist and can be considered a racial slur.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

Actually, the current owner of the Washington Redskins isn't a racist. You might be referring to the previous owner who may or not have been a racist, but that is not the topic at hand. Secondly, if CSUSB reported this, they might have polled Native Americans in the San Bernardino area which could lead to the results being biased
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

I think that the Redskins name should be changed because if it's offensive its offensive period.Of course many people will be say that the name has been around for a long time and it has no good reason for change. That people of Indian descent even like the team. That doesn't mean that it isn't offensive, many people are offended by the term redskin every day! The owner of the Redskins says that he's met 1000 Indians that like the name, and do you really think that he would go a tribe that opposes the name!? Of course not. For every 1000 Indians that so called "like the name" there are many more that think it is racist, cruel, offensive, and insensitive.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

So what in your 3rd line is Native Americans actually like the name. Also, what proves your statement right. No facts are presented with your argument
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe the comment was the "opposing view", no? The one fact presented was from the video regarding Snyder's words about visiting tribal reservations. What Snyder or Outside the Lines, omits, or doesn't speak to is IF he has ever gone to a tribe that opposes his views. 30 of the major tribes in the United States, have signed statements that disagree with the usage of the name. I'm curious if Mr. Snyder has ever stepped one foot on these reservations. For him to say NEVER, is silly, scripted, and downright false. They protest outside his stadium on game days...
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
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.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
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 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", that's it (there wasn't a Redskin Tribe). The historical facts speak for themselves. To the point of "redskin" being a slur, every major dictionary, Webster's, Cambridge, Oxford English, and Dictionary-Reference all confirm the term is disparaging or offensive to Native Americans. Furthermore, there are several court rulings related to trademark attempts for the term "redskin", of which they were denied on grounds of term being a "derogatory racial epithet". Please note a trademark office and court ruled to have the Washington Redskins trademark revoked on these grounds. There's no honor in using a word defined as offensive and a documented racial epithet---history is on my side.Your turn, go!
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
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.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

Regarding protesting, they certainly do, and peacefully. Most notably at Washington games with signs and everything. Regarding the origin of the term "redskin", the Smithsonian traces the term to the early 1700's meaning "proof of Indian kill". This pre-dates the Creek War, by almost 100 years. To the point of Megan Kelly's poll, I would first question the sample, then question Fox News (a conservative news outlet) to the authenticity of the poll. The letter sent to urge Mr. Snyder to change the name was signed by approximately 50 members from Senate. Can you venture to guess which political party signed it? All Liberal Democrats, and not one from the Conservative party. And to that, should politicians even throw their hats into this debate as the liberal senate members have? My concern is how do we (the public) know we are getting the correct news from media (conservative and liberal)? It turns into a game of he said she said, where bias is everpresent. How do we legitimize polls, and how does one explain the simple English definition of the term as a disparaging slur? Are all the mainstream dictionaries wrong or are we? I attempted to counter your claims, now please speak to the dictionary definition I've mentioned twice. :)
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

Although the term was originally created by Native Americans, they might have only used it for lack of a better vocabulary. Also, you said that "a few people believe that the name is offensive". If they changed the name, then nobody would be offended, which would please everybody. Isn't that better than just being content with what the name is?
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

Well if those small amount of people did actually care about the name and they changed the name what about the other side which is much greater than the ones that care, which you agree with me about the side not caring is much larger. What about what they say?
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

What about them? Are you claiming that they would be offended that the name is no longer a racial slur? Is that view really that legitimate?
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The topic of the Redskins continues to rage in politics, sports, and media. It is being debated as "insult or honor". I believe that the name the Redskins is not an offensive term to use as the name for an NFL football team. I don't believe that is offensive to the majority of native Americans and I do believe that the name Redskin brings honor to native Americans. A football team wouldn't deliberately name their mascot to be anything offensive. They would want their mascot to be something good. The purpose of having a team name or mascot is to show unity and power. Therefore the name the redskins should bring honor not offense.Mascots such as the Generals, Cavaliers, Spartans or the Vikings never have any issues with their names. The only similarities between the mascots are that they are all Caucasian. So is it ok to have a mascot that is white but not ok to have a mascot of any other skin color. I find that more offensive to the Redskins then their name and mascot. The Redskin song says "Hail to the Redskins! Hail Victory! Braves on the Warpath!" These are honoring words, not words of disrespect. People should not be offended by them.Stephen Dodson a Native American Chief said “It’s not degrading in one bit. It just bothers me that somebody would twist something so negatively when it’s such a positive thing.”“It is an honor, it’s a heritage. There’s a lot of respect in it. A great part of who we are as a nation has to do with pride and honor. And the Redskin name is that,” he said.“‘Redskin’ isn’t something given to us by the white man or the blue eyes, it was something in the Native American community that was taken from us. It is used also as a term of respect, because that’s how we were. We respected each other with that term.”“We don’t have a problem with the name at all; in fact we’re honored. We’re quite honored.”“It was used by natives in America to distinguish themselves from Europeans.”- BBC News article by Tom Geoghegan (9/13/2013)“90% of Native Americans recently polled do not find the term offensive”-Megan Kelly, Fox News
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

Relating to Generals, Cavaliers, Spartans, and Vikings: all neutral words when defining the words related to race or meaning. The term "redskin" is defined as disparaging by all known written dictionary publications. Spartans, residents of Sparta. Vikings were Germanic seagoers that hailed from Scandinavia, they pillaged too. Cavaliers, historically were supporters of King Charles during some war. Generals, a reference to the highest honor of military leadership. Not one of those is defined as offensive by any dictionary. And to your point on them being "white", they are not called the White Spartans, White Generals and so on...your turn.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: Yes, change it.

While your statement about the Generals, Cavaliers, Spartans, and Vikings is correct, they are not racial slurs, unlike the term "redskin" which is defined by the Webster's Dictionary as "usually offensive. While team names such as the Vikings and the Spartans refer to people of a certain country, redskin is a very derogatory term, and is downgrading to all Native Americans.
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

The Redskins continues to be a popular topic throughout sports and media. Many people believe that "the Washington Redskins" is a racial slur because it refers to "red skinned" indians, but, according to Dan Schneider, he interviewed 1,000 people and not one person had an issue with the name "The Redskins". I do not think the NFL Washington Redskins should consider changing there team name. The team name and logo is a way to make people want to buy the interesting merchandise. Honestly, It's just meant to be a descriptive name for a team that draws people towards being a part of the fan base. Not every single person will be satisfied with a team name. Any name could be offensive to someone. One man said "I do not like the team name the Bruins because my grandmother was attacked by a bear." This is just one random person, but they are not agreeing with the name the Bruins. Are they going to change the team's name just for this guy because he doesn't approve? No. There's no way to change every single sports team name just to make a few people happy. That is why the Redskins should not ever consider changing their team name.   "What interests me is how quickly it got pushed into the social consciousness. We were all fine with it since the 1930s, and all of a sudden we go, ‘No, gotta change it’? It seems like when the first levee breaks, everybody gets on board. I love the emblem. I dig it. It gives me a little fire and some oomph. But now that it’s in the court of public opinion, it’s going to change. I wish it wouldn’t, but it will." -Matthew McConaughey
Debate: Native American Mascots 8th
Side: No, leave it alone.

For a while, people have been debating/arguing about sports. But now, there are people forcing the NFL football team the "Washington Redskins" to change their team name because they think it is offensive to Native Americans. I personally think that the Washington Redskins should keep their name and mascot. Mascots are meant to bring and/or show good luck and bravery, so the people are basically honoring the Native Americans and their ways. The name may be offensive, but it's not like the people are insulting the Indians in anyway. And maybe the Indians aren't offended by this, they might feel honored that they are being used as a mascot and aren't bothered by the name.