Return to CreateDebate.comacebertrand • Join this debate community

Bertrand's ACE Debate

Welcome to Bertrand's ACE Debate!

Bertrand's ACE Debate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS 19lskalecki

Reward Points:23
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.
3 points

Also the fabric used to manufacture Underarmour's products is sourced by Underarmour's manufactures from suppliers pre-approved by them says

3 points

I disagree. There are many football players in the world. Many of them wear Underarmour shoes.

5 points

That is because Nike has been up in running for a long time. Underarmour became a store later than Nike. Nike's date founded was January 25, 1964. Where as Underarmour's date founded was ín 1996.

7 points

Underarmour's quality is also better than Nike. Underarmour basically originated the ¨dry-fit" style football undershirt but has clearly branched out into so much more theses days. Underarmour for quality always wins when it comes to athletic footwear says

7 points

I think that Underarmour is better than Nike because they are expanding there variety. Apparel retailer Underarmour, has unveiled new products that are going to be marketed in 2013. New performance of ¨Armour 39.¨

1 point

That's one person though. Many other Indian children probably think its disrespectful. More Natives think cultural mascots are disrespectful over not disrespectful.

1 point

I agree. It is very rude, it may not seem like they are mocking them but they really are. They are probably dancing in some form that is disrespectful to there culture and they don't like it. If I were them and people were dancing in my cultures clothing I would be offended and not want to be a part of my culture anymore because they are making fun of it.

1 point

The Indian reservations have people from there culture in the reservation so it is not disrespectful for them to have cultural mascots because there culture is in the reservation so they are following there religion.

1 point

It may not be offensive to some people that they have a team named after there culture it might be a pleasure to some but too most people it is offensive. The angry crowd may have been protesting for other schools to ban cultural mascots because they are disrespectful. Also the Sioux Lake member Eunice Davidson probably isn't even in the culture that the team is named after so he would know how Natives feel about there culture being named after a sports team.

2 points

Yes that's true that it would cost a lot of money but It is offensive to cultures and I'm sure that the people who run the mascots and own the Washington Red Skins stadium have enough money to pay for new logos. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide for young people, partially because of teams mocking there culture and they feel insecure by that.

19lskalecki has not yet created any debates.

About Me

I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here