The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
19 Points

Names should be used

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,382 times Debate No: 6207
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




My opponent has a view that names render people to judgment based on the names origins and meaning, and therefore they are useless. I, on the other hand, find names essential in life. Here is why:

- Everything is given a name, even tables and chairs. These are names given to objects for the purpose of identification. If someone uses the word chair in a sentence, we as people recognize what the someone is talking about. The same case applies to people. The name of a person serves the purpose of identification. In a story, it is useful to know the names of the characters for it allows the easy distinction of separate characters. If you were ever to talk to someone, start a conversation or issue a command, then you would most likely call a person's name so that person knows he/she is being addressed. If names did not exist, then differentiating between people would be much, much harder.

Addressing the view that names group you with people that you might have no relation to, specifically in religious ways, I would like to say that not too many people look at names for their racial or religious attributions. And even if the religious and racial background is looked at, not everyone who does this will make judgments about the person. Names do not serve to make a possible negative impression but instead, serve the purpose of identification. Also, the meaning of names serve no importance to most people. Not many people will care what the name means, as long as it is a name.

I now wait for my opponents response and wish him luck.


>I thank my esteemed opponent for starting this debate.

---::Opponent's Case::---

>My opponent starts out his case with a summarization of what he thinks my beliefs are. First off, I would like to say that I have in no way nominated him to speak for me and that comment should be entirely emitted. I will state my views, my opponent will state his. My opponent has no right to tell us what I believe before I even officially claim it.

>Next, my opponent moves on to the use of names in everyday life. He says that everything is given a name for the purposes of identification. Chairs are called chairs, tables are called tables. However, these are not names. These are each a description of a larger sub-category which the object fits into. If these WERE names, then we would all call each other human. Does that sound right? Of course not. My opponent is incorrectly using the word "name."�‚�� By definition a name is:

A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others

Reader, I would like you to think about it this way: does "chair" accurately describe an entity?

>Lastly, the next remarks or my opponent are in defense of comments which have not yet even been made. To address these anyway, my opponent is completely incorrect. To give an example, Luigi is an Italian name. Most humans would hear that name and immediately make references to the ethnicity of the person. Religion works exactly the same way. For example, the name Jesus. I think you, reader, will understand the point.

---::My Case::---

>The topic of this debate is "Names Should be Used."�‚�� My opponent has the burden of proof to prove that names should be used. If he fails to do this, there will be no reason to vote for him.

>I will give my fundamental point and later elaborate if needed.

>You may or may not have noticed that I don't say things like "Hi, Jim," I just say "Hi." Names are not needed in society. For one thing, we do not choose our names. Our parents choose them for us and (by not being us) probably make bad decisions. They cannot take into account what you want your name to be when they decide what to name you. They name you based off of what they want you to be, not what you are.

>Next, a name is an unnecessary label. I don't want to be known by a name because I am not my name. The entity (see definition of name above) of myself is not restricted to a name, a name is just a word. I don't want to be known by name because a name is not who I am. I (myself) am who I am. I make decision, and choose what I want to do. Neither I nor you an a word. And A a name is just a word in all of this. By having names people are restricted. They can be remembered not by who they are or what they want to be, but by a noise. Hopefully I have convinced you. If not, do you honestly think that people need names? Why?

>I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will defend my own case, then refute my opponent's case.

My opponent has stated my burden to prove that "names should be used."

My argument, is that names serve the purpose of identification, and without such identification, it would be harder to distinguish between people; therefore, names should be used.

This debate was started as a result of the conflicting ideas of my opponent and I on names. I felt it necessary to tell my opponent what I thought of his views before starting as to give a clear picture on where I stand. If that was improper, I apologize, and from now on we will continue disregarding that portion of my argument.

My opponent states a definition of name. I agree with this definition.

The definition of entity is "something that has a real existence; thing." A "chair" does accurately describe an entity.
A chair is an entity and is distinguished from other entities by its name chair. This statement is true by my opponent's definition of a name. Similarly, humans, entities, distinguish between each other, other entities, with names such as David, Mohammad, John, Gautham, etc.

Lastly, names may attribute people to certain ethnicities or religions but most people will not judge a person based on these factors. Which I had pointed out in my argument.

Now, my opponent's case.

My opponent's fundamental point is that names are not needed in society for the following reasons:

- The named does not choose his/her name, and as a result, the name may be an inaccurate representation of who the named is.

- Names are unnecessary labels.

My response:

My opponent says that names restricts entities because they are a label. But entities are not restricted to names. Names are just a way to distinguish between entities. The meaning of the name does not restrict the entity to being just that. Entities can make decisions anyway they want, the name, a word, does not restrict them. As an entity I, you, and everyone else, can be whoever we want, defined by our decisions. Why not have a name to identify us as the person who has made those decisions? Names do not restrict the entity, but instead the entity defines the name. Though parents may name you based off of what they want you to be, this does not mean that you cannot determine who you are through your actions. Your actions define you as a person, the name distinguishes you as that person. You are remembered by name as a person who has committed the actions that define you.

I now wait for my opponents response and wish him luck.


>I thank my esteemed opponent for his response.

>I would like to firstly note that any "�ƒ�',�ƒ�'" (without the cursive "f's," I do not know why they will not go away) last round was the cause of a technical difficulty and should not influence voting in this debate.

>I will take it that my opponent accepts his burden of proof.

>My opponent starts his actual argument out with agreeing with my definition of name and then expanding on it. I definition of entity. I accept that he agrees with the definition, but disagree with his given definition of the word entity. I would like to redefine entity:

Definite, individual existence outside or within the mind; anything real in itself

Given that my opponent's definition of entity referred to physical existence rather than mental uniqueness, all arguments he makes on the topic with his given definition are hereby null. For clarification, the word "chair" does not capture the entity (according to my definition) of the object.

>Next, my opponent moves on to names in relation to the differentiation to ethnicities and religions. Again I will cite the burden of proof delegated to my opponent. He is responsible for proving that names should, in fact, be used. He concedes that some names might be related to religion or ethnicity, but disregards his obligation to prove the resolution true in all cases.


>I will now move on to my opponent's rebuttal of my own arguments. My opponent argues, firstly, that entities are not restricted to names. This is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY to his acceptance of the definition of the word name. By definition, the purpose of a name is to be a "word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others." Essentially, names are made for the purpose of fitting an entity into a word. This is one of the largest problems I have with names and thus I restate that a name is a poor attempt to label an entity.

>"...the entity defines the name." This is almost precisely my point. Names are predefined by entities, even before we ever receive them. For example, what if your name means "skilled mariner?" Can it be guaranteed that you will be of the "skilled mariner" entity when you are named? No. In fact, it is more probable that you WILL NOT FIT this entity.

Lastly, following this argument, I would like to bring up the fact that more than one person may possess the same name. My opponent even says that "your actions define you as a person, the name distinguishes you as that person." What if a name is common enough that you are acquainted with another person who possesses the same name? There is no distinguishing factor. The entities are both put into the same word.


>I would like to bring up one more argument which I derived from my opponent's talk of "defining" of entities. I will now question rather or not a name really CAN define an entity. Definition is defined as:

The act of making clear and distinct

CAN a clear or distinct entity fit into a word? I shall have to negate. If I were to define myself "[clearly] and [distinctly]," I would have to write hundreds of pages. Typically, I ask, how long are definitions? To answer this myself, I picked a random definition from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary (

Featherbed: a feather mattress

That particular definition was most probably shorter than the average definition. To repeat, I picked another:

Hedgehop: to fly an airplane close to the ground and rise over obstacles as they appear

Neither of these definitions exceeded one line.

So what does all of this mean? Well, according to the definition of the word "name" that both my opponent and I agreed to, a name can be "a word or words." It does not seem that I could define my entity in one line of text (I would need pages and pages). But could I define my entity in MULTIPLE WORDS? Well, it would have to be a GARGANTUAN number of words. I wager that I, personally, could be satisfied with thousands of words in a definition of my entity.

Here we must tie this back to the original resolution/topic of this debate: Names should be used. We have the simple sequence of:

Name captures an entity => Entity captures individual existence (uniqueness) => Name captures individual existence (uniqueness) => Name is used to define the entity => Defining of an entity would take thousands of words => Use of thousands of words to describe one individual entity is extremely impractical => Names SHOULD NOT be used

I will leave the point at that for the time being.


>I, as always, await the response of my respected opponent and wish him the best of luck in his rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


karththegeld forfeited this round.


>I regret that my opponent has forfeited the round. Sadly, given that he has not responded to any of my arguments, I must conclude that he drops not only all of my arguments, but all of his own.

My opponent was online 23 hours ago (as I write this) and had a 48 hour time period to respond. I thus conclude that my opponent may not claim to any insufficient means to respond.


Additionally, during my last round I stated: "Names SHOULD NOT be used."


Therefore, I urge a vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his responses.

I would like to apologize for not being able to respond to my opponent's arguments

The word entity in the accepted definition of name provided by my opponent is "a word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others," refers to a physical object such as a chair. So, my argument on the topic does stand. My argument was that names serve the purpose of identification in society.

Any attributions to ethnicity and religion provided by the names means nothing because the name serves to identify the person. Without identification you are faced with some problems. It is often unclear about who is talking to who, who is mentioning who, who implies who, etc. Thus, names provide for easy comprehension and more efficiency. More efficiency in that less time is taken pointing out who you are talking about and such similar tasks.

I had not conceded the point of my opponent in relation of names to ethnicities and religions, etc. of the beings being described. I stated this in round 1 and referred back to it in round 2.

Next, my opponent states that I contradict myself about entities and names. But I do not.

My argument was that names of entities are references to the actions of the entities and so entities are not restricted to names. When anyone says Osama Bin Laden, the first thought is terrorist not Islamic extremist. His actions are referred to by his name. Basically, the actions of the entity define the name. **This example is just an example not meant to provoke any debate.**

My opponent's response was that my argument was contradicted by the definition. Here is the definition of name: "a word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others." Designated means "to mark or point out; indicate; show; specify." And distinguished means "conspicuous; marked." Both of these definitions mean nothing other than identify. This makes my opponent's argument amount to just about nothing.

When it comes to defining an entity, my opponent says that he would have to write a hundred pages to clearly and distinctly define himself. And, as the usual definition is no more than a line, he says that entities cannot be defined. Looking at this, I see a huge flaw in my opponent's argument. This is that the definition of definition says nothing about length. Just simply "the act of making clear and distinct." Famous people are defined by their actions. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr., we know exactly who he is because of what he has done. Therefore actions do define entities.

The simple sequence provided by my opponent is not true, it does not fit what actually is. Instead it should be as such:

Entity defines name => Name identifies the entity = Entity defines entity (through actions) => Names should be used

------------------------------------- Round 3 -------------------------------------

I do not wish to provide an excuse for my procrastination.

My opponent claims that I cannot create or formulate new arguments, but if this was true I could not have written what I have above.

Secondly, I do not think that a winner can be determined in a debate because the opponent (me) did not respond in time. That also means that I have not dropped all my arguments and my opponent's. To back myself, I provide the following example:

-- In a test match (cricket if you do not know) in 1958, I believe, the Indian team won against England and only played the first innings. During the second innings, the Indians were not able to bat due to the rain.

From this I conclude that the debater with the arguments with better quality should win. My forfeit should mean little or nothing to the decision made by the voter.

I will also point out that my opponent has stressed the fact that I have forfeited a round to a great amount, making it seem that he has little or no confidence in his argument.

With that in mind, I strongly urge you vote PRO when the time comes.

I await my opponent's response.


>I thank my opponent for his response and for this debate.

>All statements by my opponent above "Round 3" are not to be counted. My opponent has dropped all of them (see Round 3). Nothing he says about any of them is valid given that they have already been dropped by him.


>My opponent's "Round 3" response is a play on semantics. He claims that his ability to type is proof that he can, in fact, rebut and create/formulate new arguments, but in a debate setting, he actually cannot make this action. When my opponent drops all arguments made by both parties, he forfeits them all to me (he concedes them).

My opponent then claims that a winner cannot be determined by time constraints and cites one example. This is, however, completely false. For example, in soccer/football (depending on region), if a team is unable to score more than the other team within 90 minutes and instead scores less than them, they lose. Does it matter if the losing team could have scored another 4 goals if given one minute more time? No.

Next, my opponent admits that he HAS forfeited his rounds, contracting himself. He refers to the arguments as "[his] forfeit." These should quite obviously matter to the voters as debate etiquette is based upon responses. If responses are not given within the allotted time, they ARE NOT COUNTED.

Oddly, my opponent next moves on to accuse me of having little or no confidence in my argument. I completely disagree, and claim that my argument has far superior to my opponent's.

>Voter, there is no reason to vote PRO. PRO has dropped all of his own arguments and, in addition, all CON arguments. There is no conceivable manner in which PRO would win this debate. No matter what preconceived notions you possess or what you believe about the arguments of either side the facts remain:



:: To My Opponent ::

>I found your efforts of refutation in the last round both disrespectful and rude. You showed great distaste for the rules and conventions of debate. Playing semantics does not and will not win you debates.


>Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 7 years ago
Burden of proof. All names. Or no names. You can't choose a portion but not the whole. I agree with you, to follow the next step of logic you follow my points.
Posted by paramore102 7 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 is right, today in society were are labeled, for example you have your Goths, Preps, Emo's,, Geeks, Nerds ex. so on there for ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 makes a valid point. You don't need to have a name there is now on in this world that may look like you (unless you have an identical twin) names are pointless.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by necromancer 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by FeatherintheWind 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07