The Instigator
pointguard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

should we change native american mascots?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 40999
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

pointguard

Con

I strongly believe that we should change native American mascots. if any other ya
Stonewall

Pro

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic, and sorry for the late response. The opponent didn't really lay out or imply any format, so I'll just begin by saying that we should not change Native American mascots for many reasons. I'll let my opponent go first, then explain my stance. After you.
Debate Round No. 1
pointguard

Con

pointguard forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Pro

Well, I hope my opponent will come back at some point, but I'll start off the debate. I'll focus on the most famous team, the Washington Redskins, and touch on similar teams/mascots.

First of all, it should be mentioned that professional football teams are privately owned. Thus, no amount of begging, petitioning, and picketing will necessarily change anything, unless the owner feels so moved. If Daniel Snyder wishes to keep the name of the Washington Redskins, whether it's for nostalgia, personal convictions, to spite the offended, or even change it to the Washington Wetbacks or Niggers, that is his right. It is not hate speech, and is thus protected.

Second, 90% of Native Americans are not bothered by the name (1). Results are similar across America- a lowly ten percent of people think the name should be changed (2). You could do this study for pretty much any subject; ten percent of unnecessarily offended people is not worth changing something. And it is unnecessary offended-ness. The name does not affect or cause harm to anyone outside of, "It hurts my feelings." If the country starts to cater to people who claim to be offended for the sake of political correctness, and we have been, we will surely regress.

In addition, linguists have found that "redskin" was initially a completely inoffensive and impartial term (3). Just because a nation has bastardized the term (much like the terms "bitch" and "bastard") does not speak to its harmless origins.

1. http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org...

2. http://ap-gfkpoll.com...

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
pointguard

Con

pointguard forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Pro

Vote for whoever made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
What do you mean by change? Do you mean reword or completely change the idea of?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
pointguardStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually provided arguments. Con just forfeited.