Return to CreateDebate.comskarie • Join this debate community

Skarie ACE Debate


Debate Info

73
63
Proposition Opposition
Debate Score:136
Arguments:36
Total Votes:197
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Proposition (19)
 
 Opposition (16)

Debate Creator

askarie(40) pic



Spring 2015 (Red) - Ban Controversial Mascots

Proposition

Side Score: 73
VS.

Opposition

Side Score: 63
4 points

I agree with you Preston because it is derogatory to different groups and cultures. An example is the Redskins, because it is referring to Native Americans that they have red skin. That is rude and stereotypical because not all Native Americans have red skin.

Side: Proposition
4 points

Over 2,000 schools have changed their logo, according to the article Mind Your Own Mascot By:Gordon, Devin. Also that Mr. Cooper a full blooded American Indian said his daughter became so offended, her eyes filled with tears and she asked if they could leave. So that tells me something that people can get really offended by these mascots, so I think they should ban them for causing all these bad things.

Side: Proposition
4 points

I think controversial mascots should be banned because Indians think people are being racist towards them. I think this because it leads to stereotyping, also Andrea Pierce who works for the Michigan Coalition against Racism in Sports says It’s “legalized racism.”

Side: Proposition
4 points

I disagree with Mason because your really not supporting Native Americans because maybe they think that the mascots look nothing like them, so they complain to ban the mascots so they have a big debate weather to keep them or not.

Side: Proposition
4 points

Some people say that some controversial mascots represent and make some Native American groups feel honored. But I disagree, I think that controversial mascots are offensive to some groups and should be banned. "The "use" of these mascots are "legalized racism," says Andrea Pierce who has a job with Michigan Coalition, which is against racism in sports. Some controversial mascots represent groups in a foolish way, which can be taken offensively by people or groups. According to Scholastic News Edition, "Wisconsin now allows bans on logos, nicknames, and mascots based on Native Americans and other races."

Side: Proposition
4 points

"Native Americans to feel that sports teams are making a mockery of their way of life and marginalizing the way they were treated by white settlers," according to Arab-Americans cry over California High school mascot

Side: Proposition
4 points

Another reason why I think controversial mascots should be banned, is because mascots are supposed to show an example for children, as many children idolize these teams with controversial mascots. The article "Arab-Americans cry foul over California high school mascot," they interview a person that works in civil rights. They state, "“Ayoub said that in nearly 10 years of working in civil rights he has never encountered a more egregious case of stereotyping. “And what makes it worse is that it’s coming from a school district,” he said. “They’re supposed to be teaching kids to respect other cultures.”

Side: Proposition
4 points

My second reason is that many people have made efforts to change there mascots. Wisconsin made a law to ban logos, nicknames, and mascots. Also Barack Obama said he would consider changing the redskins name.

Side: Proposition
4 points

Controversial Mascots are disrespectful and without changing them can show kids that they are alright. "What makes it worse is that it's coming from a school district," says Abed Ayoub, who is the legal and policy director for the ADC, "They're supposed to be teaching kids to respect other cultures." When kids see controversial mascots they might laugh and make fun of them and think that those mascots, logos, and names are good and don't matter to anyone. As they grow up they might think that controversial mascots don't affect anyone, and might make more offensive things that might make people more offended.

Side: Proposition
3 points

I think that we should ban controversial mascots because they look at cultures and groups in a cartoonish way. According to the article "Honor or Insult" by Scholastic News Edition, "Groups supporting the Wisconsin law say Native American sports references are insulting....they show American Indian culture in a cartoonish way.” This quote shows how it does affect groups and cultures by looking at them in a cartoonish way.

Side: Proposition
3 points

I think they should ban mascots because even defenders believe that certain Native Americans names, like pro footballs Washington Redskins, are offensive akin to referring to African Americans as “colored”. For example, the name "Redskins" suggests that all Native Americans had red skin, which isn't the case.

Side: Proposition
3 points

Adding to that, many controversial mascots portray groups and cultures in a cartoonish way, because according to the "Sports Mascots" by the Huffington Post, "…the name that is offensive, it's the cartoonish manner in which the mascots and symbols are portrayed,...”

Side: Proposition
2 points

Some people might say that controversial mascots make some Native Americans and other groups/tribes proud. But I think that controversial mascots offend people. "If one person, if one child is offended, then we need to stop it." Says Abel Cooper. If one mascot or name shows disrespect, or if it offends a Native American group or another tribe, then some part of it should be changed.

Side: Proposition
1 point

I think that they should ban mascots because people see them insulting not a sign of respect. Like the Oneida representative Ray Halbritter says " We do not deserve to be called Redskins. Suzan Harjo says " There is nothing dignified in something being so named (That is used for) recreation or entertainment or fun. You're really not supporting them they think that you are insulting them. Many schools in Wisconsin made the switch even before the new law took effect. Groups supporting the Wisconsin law say that Native american sport references are are insulting.

Side: Proposition
1 point

Another reason why I think we should ban controversial mascots is because that disvalues their cultures. Here is an example Bel Cooper remembers taking his daughter to a high school football game once and watching as a cheerleader came running onto the field wearing what looked like a Native American headdress and buckskin clothing. Then the teenaged girl flipped around and did cartwheels for the entertainment of the fans in the stands. So there just doing that for fun and not entertainment when we should be respecting their culture.

Side: Proposition
1 point

I agree with ryan we are not really honoring them we are kind of disrespecting their culture. Like the Redskins is referring to someone being colored, not honoring them it is disrespecting them.

Side: Proposition
0 points

Some people might say that they keep native American mascots but i disagree. I think they should "500 Native organizations, hundreds of tribes and petitions with signatures in the tens of thousands have called for the retirement of these mascots. Also 2000 schools stopped using native American mascots because it is disrespectful to native Americans!

Side: Proposition
20jdriscoll(1) Disputed
1 point

But people are standing up for there mascots now like in boiceville it says that the people want there mascot back and are standing up for it in the article Mind Your Own Mascot. Also in the arab school it is not as if they have to change the mascot it is the appearance.

Side: Opposition
20abauer(8) Disputed
1 point

While this is true, Margaret Carey lead a campaign against a school Indian mascot and had her tire popped. So people are doing to much to keep there mascot.

Side: Proposition
5 points

I disagree with you Mason. Although you might think that it is a sign of respect, that is not true. Groups and cultures get very saddened by these mascots because they make fun of their cultures. A story written by a Native American on CNN.com, states "The R-word - she can’t even bring herself to say it - is the same as the N-word, says Harjo, president of Morning Star Institute, a national Native American rights organization. She finds it unbelievable that more than half a century after she was told to get out of that El Reno store, after decades of civil rights struggles and progress on race relations, Americans have no problem with rooting for a team called the Redskins.”

Side: Opposition
4 points

I think that Mascots should not be banned Because of these three reasons, It is a sign of respect, and the majority rules, and my last reason is that, we honor our mascots. I think Mascots should not be banned.

Side: Opposition
5 points

Mascots are a sign of respect to the people or being it is named after, they are not meant to offend anyone or disappoint and we do look up to our mascots in a way. Such as the Kimberly Papermakers, we don't find it offensive and we look up to it when the team goes to state. That is what we do when our favorite professional teams go to a championship game, or the world series.

Side: Opposition
20mheadson Clarified
5 points

Teams choose their mascots and the redskins choose theirs because they wanted to respect the native Americans.Even when you look up the definition of mascot it will say this: A person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization. Also majority rules because It is kind of like the president, when you vote and your side doesn't win you still have to deal with it. And studies show that more people say they want to keep mascots instead of banning them. According to this website http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-native-american-mascots-be-banned. So no matter what side wins it all comes down to the votes.So I think mascots should not be banned.

Side: Proposition
4 points

"Lots of town and states have names of Indian's and tribes, like Wisconsin or Manitowoc. So if states and towns can have these names why can't sports teams" Pros and cons of schools Indian mascots.

Side: Opposition
4 points

You may say that these mascots offend groups of people, but we say that they do not offend these people, they honor them. The article "Arab Americans Cry Foul Over California High School Mascot" talks about Coachella Valley High School and their Arab mascot. David Hinkle, who graduated from the school in 1961, says "I don't think the images they have now are offensive." Art Montoya, who also graduated from Coachella Valley High School said "I have heard very few comments on our mascot name name. Each time that I heard it, it came from a shallow-minded person that I never took seriously."

Side: Opposition
3 points

According to the article "Arab Americans Cry Foul over California High School Mascots" a town with the mascot of an Arab has a long history with Arabs. If they changed the mascot, the whole town would revolt. The town choose Arabs as their mascot because they show respect toward Arabs, which helped make the city what it is today. These mascots are not chosen to offend these groups of people, they are made to honor them.

Side: Opposition
3 points

I believe that controversial mascots should not be banned because they could make people feel good about their self or their culture. I don't think they are bad, I think if someone is offended by a mascot it is just something personal and not many other feel the same way. Some people say that they mock people and make fun of them and the feel offended but I think they could make someone happy or make them feel good about there self.

Side: Opposition
3 points

In lots of cases indians don't even care. In a study done by sports illustrated said that most indians don't see the braves frase "tamahalk chop" as offensive.

Side: Opposition
2 points

Mascots are not disrespectful. According the the article "Honor or Insult?" (Pg. 2)

"Members of the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe sued the University of North Dakota to keep it's Fighting Sioux nickname. 'I am very, very honored that they would use the name,' Spirit Lake member Eunice Davidson told 'The York York Times.'"

This shows that not only are Native Americans not offended by these mascots, they are actually honored by them. They are even going so far as to fighting to get the name back. Also, according to the article "Indian Mascots, Matter of Pride or Prejudice?" Seminoles had no problem with a team using their name. There was also an experiment done where Native Americans were shown the Cleveland Indians logo and then they were ask to write down their thoughts and they were mostly positive, according to the article "The Native American Mascot, Tribute or Insult?" These mascots have a deep history in towns. In the article "Mind Your Own Mascot" it says "Shortly after Carey and the school board voted to toss out the Onteora Indian on January 24, the local community voted to toss out most of the school board. Carey survived, but her decision didn't. On September 11 the new board restored the mascot. The same thing happened last year to the Marquette High School Chief on Michigan's rural Upper Peninsula. After the school board yanked the stoic Indian logo, an angry, 1200-person protest was led by-of all people-Marquette's Native American community."

Side: Opposition
2 points

20jdriscoll is wrong the state of Wisconsin has made a law to ban Indian mascots, logos, and symbols.

Side: Opposition
20jdriscoll(1) Disputed
4 points

But the point is that why didn't wisconsin take away it's name or town names. So why didn't they do that there must be a good reason like thretining riots.

Side: Opposition
2 points

Some see indian mascots as a sign of respect. Some mascots even mean somthing like Chief Illiniwek he served to inspire spirit as a mascot. In loveland high school they are trying to get some of the Sioux tribe to go to the school and teach about Sioux history.That “The goal is to make sure that we are honoring with our Indian logo," said Principal Todd Ball. From article Loveland High works with Sioux on respectful Indian mascot.

Side: Opposition
2 points

I agree with one of 20jdriscoll's earlier arguments, about why if the states or many towns in states are named after famous Indians or Indian tribes, then why is it all of a sudden wrong to name a sports team after them? There may be times when the team may have a rude nickname or chant like "Scalpers" or "Scalp them!" Those I can understand why people or Indians may find offensive but the team names in general should be fine.

Side: Opposition
1 point

Saying the team name Indians is offensive is like saying that the Chicago Bears are offensive. Just because a team is named after something doesn't mean it's offensive or hurtful. As David Hinkle says about the school name Arabs in Coachella Valley, "I don't think it can be viewed as offensive. I don't think the images they have now are offensive." Why would the Arabs be offensive? Especially after the article Arab-Americans cry foul over high school mascot explains that "The community's fascination with the Middle East dates as far back as the late 19th century, when U.S. Department of Agriculture officials and entrepreneurs went on expeditions around the world in search of crops that would thrive in the U.S. They traveled to the Middle East-mainly North Africa- and brought back date palm shoots, which they planted in various parts of the country. Where they flourished was the Coachella Valley." This shows that they did not name the school Arabs to offend these people, they did it to honor them.

Side: Opposition
1 point

If everybody is trying to change the name of their mascots then how are people supposed to honor the history of where they are from. So we should keep our mascots, they tell about the history, and about the people that lived before us. The mascots were never intended to hurt anybody, but to honor them.

Side: Opposition