The Instigator
manutdredseal46
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

People should not be named at birth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 14 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,655 times Debate No: 6016
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (14)

 

manutdredseal46

Pro

>I would like to thank my opponent (I do not yet know who he or she will be) for accepting this very abstract debate.

>What I want to debate here is that naming of a human being at birth should not happen. I mean this extremely literally, nobody would have a name until a later point in life.

>My argument is basically in four parts. They are as follows:

1. People may dislike the names given to them at birth

2. People could be given names at birth which would hinder them

3. People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)

4. People deserve a choice in what their name is

I will now briefly highlight each part.

>My first argument is that people may dislike the names given to them at birth. This is the most simple of my concepts, and basically involves human decisions. Some people don't want to be named after their Grandfather, no matter how much their Mom thinks that it should be there name.

>My second argument is that people could be given names at birth which would hinder them. To give a well known example of this, Courteney Cox and David Arquette chose to name their daughter Coco. Most people would be teased and harassed because of that name, and it demeans the person. To give a personal example, I have an uncle (no, I have not met him) formerly named Chandler who actually became a murderer because he couldn't stand his name and had a mental breakdown. I believe his name is now John and he is now a normal citizen.

>My third argument is that people could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality). Parents do not know what a baby is going to be like at birth. Therefore, they cannot give their baby a fitting name. As a hypothetical, a baby could have a name meaning "fiery lord" but actually be a calm philosophical person.

>My fourth and final argument (for now) is that people deserve a choice in what their name is. In many countries, people are given rights such as the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech. In how many countries can people choose their birth name? None. Now this is obviously because the baby cannot make decisions like that at such a young age but they can remain unnamed until they can truly make the right decision. To my opponent (whoever you are): Don't people deserve the right to choose their own name considering all of the other rights they have?

>The last major thing I want to say is for clarification. In the system I am proposing, babies would be assigned numbers until a decision on what to name them was made.

>I thank my opponent in advance for their response and wish them luck. Thank you all.
Logical-Master

Con

Apologies for the delay. I've been procrastinating a lot lately mainly because I really don't feel like debating. If not for the debate.org reminders, I may have even forgotten about this debate's existence. Anyway . . .

I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate and would like to thank all of those who are reading. I ask that no one vote with bias on this debate, but rather vote for the individual who did a better job arguing than the other. With that said, let us proceed.

RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth

And? If people dislike their names at birth, then the solution is to have their name changed upon legal age. Given that my opponent agrees that an individual should not be able to change their name until they are able to, I believe there shouldn't be much of a problem. His alternative is that people should be unnamed. To which I respond:

1) What about the people who don't want to have a number for a name? Won't there be people who dislike being unnamed at birth till the age in which they can truly make the "right" decision?
2) What if the people don't like the number they are assigned with at birth? What if they wanted a number of their decision?
3) What if people are persecuted for the number they are assigned? For instance, if there are 3 sixes in someone's number name (such as 666123), it is rather likely that this person will be persecuted. In fact, there are quite a few numbers which possess a taboo or can be recognized as having some negative affiliation.
4) As suggested above, there are numbers which a society may choose to label meaning behind (such as 007). Children may get upset about getting a number which doesn't match up with their personality.

Given these 4 insinuations, it is demonstrated that even if we accept my opponents points (as you might have guessed, they fall in line with the arguments he made as to why naming children is bad), the possibilities are still the same, ergo, there is no change, hence changing the status quo is redundant and perhaps more trouble than it's worse given that the entire culture would have to go through the tedious process of change. Hence, it would really be unnecessary for me to go any further in this round, but to pacify my opponent, I shall do so anyway.

RE: People could be given names at birth which would hinder them

To support this, my opponent mentions cases where individuals have been made fun of by their peers. He even goes so far as to testify an event which is convenient for his argument; he testifies that his so-called uncle formerly named "CHandler" actually became murderer and had a mental breakdown because he couldn't stand his name yet it now a normal citizen because he had his name changed to John.

A) Indeed, there are bullies who will persecute other individuals for matters as trivial as their names just as there are bullies who will persecute other individuals due to some supposedly embarrassing trait of their parents . Based on my opponents reasonings, individuals who feel attacked by these bullies who mock them should have the option to choose who their parents will be as well. After all, if individuals with "embarrassing parents" could pick their parents at any time they find them inconvenient, that would most certainly solve everything, right? Wrong. Why do these names demean these people? Because the people who claim it does say so? What PRO encourages is an era of weak people. People who cannot handle those who may try and persecute them, thus attempt to appease to appease tormentors by fixing what their tormentors have deemed the problem. Rather than encourage individual to give in to the foolishness of bullying and meat their persecutor's demands, individuals should be encouraged to stand up to their tormentors as well as develop a mindset that doesn't so drastically rely on the thoughts/opinions of others.

B) My fair audience, my opponent's testimony is more likely than not fabricated. Think about it for a moment. His uncle became a murderer yet is now a normal every day citizen after having gotten a name change? Individuals who have committed crimes such as murder typically get a life sentence in prison (or worse). How is it that this "murderer" managed to get his name changed without being caught by the authorities? For that matter, normal citizens are not citizens who are serving time in prison. Finally, why didn't this "uncle" just get his name changed in the first place? None of this testimony adds up. Clearly, this is nothing more than a ruse concocted by the instigator in attempt to get some leverage in this debate. It would be far better if the instigator would actually provide some legitimate evidence (perhaps statistics on the number of people who have become murders in response to disliking their birth names).

RE: "My third argument is that people could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)."

That assumes that parents name their children on the premise of what kind of person they believe their child to be. It's unlikely that when someone decides to name their child "Daniel", they immediately think "God judges." Many parents simply name their child because they like the name. Furthermore, given that the term "fitting" is highly subjective, a child can always be argued to have a fitting or an unfitting name regardless of circumstances. Finally, there is no reason for us to assume that a majority of the people are even aware as to how their name has been defined, thus, there is really no reason to consider this as being reason to mandate that children remain unnamed at birth.

RE:>My fourth and final argument (for now) is that people deserve a choice in what their name is.

Indeed so, hence why we already have a system that allows children to change their name at the same age they are allowed to vote (though in some countries, the age varies). In order to win this debate, the instigator must prove that his system is superior to the current system. If he fails to do this, you have no reason to vote in his favor.

And that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 1
manutdredseal46

Pro

>Thanks to my opponent, Logical-Master, for his response.

>My opponent says that people can change their name as they like at legal age. This is completely true, but they may be labeled so to speak and this could be a detriment to their childhood until they do finally change their name. I will now answer my opponent's questions:

1) Indeed there are always people who are against the system. I still believe that choice is the best decision here.

2) Then they only have to wait 5 years or less. Right no if you don't like your name you could have to wait as many as 16 years. Would you rather wait 5 years or 16 years? I am not sure what my opponent means by the second part of his question so I'll leave clarification up to him.

3) Indeed this is true. There are also many names which aren't numbers which would be similar to this. For example, the name "Jesus" (as in the one pronounced "hey suse") could be made fun of because of its spelling like the biblical Jesus.

4) Two responses here. 1: it's a 5 year wait, not 16. 2: there are more names like that than there are numbers.

> I will now respond to my opponent on "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them." My opponent has brought embarrassing parents into this name discussion. I am not sure how this works, so I won't refute it until clarification. Next, (in point B) my opponent basically accused me of lying. I don't think that I have said anything thus far that implicates me lying and it would be much appreciated if my opponent could assume that I am truthful (which I am) for the purposes of this debate. I am not saying he made a smart decision, just that that kind of thing CAN happen.

>My opponent goes on to say that parents generally pick names because they like them. This is precisely my point. THEY like the name. The KID may not. Also a response to what my opponent says, the name may not fit. For example, Mars (I don't know anyone by this name, it is an example) was a god of war (mythology). A pacifist named Mars would not make sense and would not fit.

>My opponent responds to my last argument by saying that people should just wait until their current legal age to change their name. He then says that I should prove my system better. Reader, I want you to imagine 2 situations:

A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like.

B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage." You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years.

>I look forward to the next argument from my opponent.
Logical-Master

Con

First, ladies and gentleman, I'd like you to take note of the words from my opponent in his previous round. He said the following:

"Now this is obviously because the baby cannot make decisions like that at such a young age but they can remain unnamed until they can truly make the right decision."

Because of this, I was under the impression that PRO agreed with the system that individuals ought not be able to do things until a certain legal age. Now, my opponent is insisting that individuals would only have to wait FIVE YEARS OR LESS. Ladies and gentleman, from this recent statement, we learn two things:

1) With the addition of the words "or less", PRO is contradicting his comment in the previous round, given that he acknowledged that "less" didn't exist since individuals who are "too young" shouldn't vote until they are truly old enough to vote; he implied there was a limitation.

2) If we are to simply ignore the addition of "or less", there is still a problem and that is when individuals can truly make decisions. Given that PRO disagrees with the status quo (that the legal age is the proper age where one should be able to change their name) and asserted that there is an age at which children a old enough to change their name, PRO has the burden of proving his ideas. So far, we've seen no evidence that the ages "5 or younger" are proper ages at which the typical individual should be able to have their name changed. Ergo, you have no reason to support PRO's position, therefore, you are obligated to dismiss it without any hesitation.

>>>RE (2): "RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth"

Let us now focus on PRO's responses to the 4 questions I brought up in my previous round.

1) PRO confesses that the matter would be no different in terms of people disliking the way they are labeled, thus, he concedes to the fact that you have no reason to consider his 1st argument (which is actually the argument listed above "RE . . . . ")

2) I initially addressed this matter in this round, but for the sake of the argument, let us assume that PRO is correct. Even if that be the case, this does nothing to benefit PRO's argument as this debate does not necessarily concern the specific legal age at which one is able to change their name. Ergo, I could simply agree to PRO's system of "5 years or less" and apply it to the current system which designates parents as the ones to name their children. Thus, our society wouldn't have to go through the tedious transition of having numerical labels for their children. With that being said, the naming system would naturally be more efficient than PROs, thus superior.

CLARIFICATION: By the second question, I meant "What if people want to choose the particular number they wish to have?"

3) Agreed, there are names AND numbers which one could use to persecute another. If that is all PRO has to say on this matter, then like his first argument, he has essentially agreed that his third argument is dismissible given that it will grant no change.

4) A)See my initial argument in this round and see #2 above. B) First, if it is the case that there are more names with a meaning associated with them than numbers, then please submit evidence for this claim. Second, the above being the case is highly unlikely given that there is meaning associated with every number. Every number is less/greater than other numbers. Individuals could very well see highness or lowness of their number as a sign of rank.

>>>RE(2) "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them."

A) First, my opponent asks me to clarify on what I meant by embarrassing parents. I shall gladly do this. Many parents can be considered "embarrassing" to have in the perspective of a child. Often times, peers may decide to persecute fellow peers based on their parents' income (if the parents have a low income and/or work at Walmart or Mcdonalds), the appearance of their parents (if one or both of the parents aren't too pleasing in terms of appearance) or if their fellow peers have parents who are over affectionate in public. Regardless, people are persecuted for many things (not just names). To suggest that individuals who are wrongfully persecuted merely appeal to their persecutors is rather absurd.

B) Now, as for the tale which my opponent told that concerned his so-called uncle, PRO doesn't bother responding to my criticisms on his testimony and merely request that I assume he is being honest. First, I have no reason to assume my opponent is truthful . . . especially considering that he is making a point that he believes is defending his claim concerning why the topic should be affirmed. Second, in the previous round, I insinuated that whether or not my opponent is being honest, his evidence is weak and that he should actually try presenting some statistics that concern the rate at which individuals become mass murderers for having a name which they do not approve of. PRO has yet to present any valid evidence on this matter.

>>>RE(2)"People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)"

PRO does not respond to all of the points I made on this matter. Rather, he merely repeats himself ad nauseum by providing an example of someone getting a name which does not fit. Thus, simply look back to my response on this matter in the previous round.

And yes, an individual could very well disapprove of the name his/her parents provides him/her. In response to this, I've agreed with the current system that allows "name changing." Quite frankly though, I'm not too sure as to why PRO felt the need to reiterate that point here.

>>>RE(2) "People deserve a choice in what their name is"

Finally, PRO tells you to imagine 2 situations, but if you've read over my criticisms of PRO's "5 years or less" position or my criticisms of his response to my second question in the first round, you shall see that I've sufficiently addressed his concerns.

Thus, with things as they are, PRO has really done nothing to demonstrate why "People should not be named at birth." As I've pointed out, there would be no real difference in terms of the problems, thus no reason for change. In addition, the process of change would simply be rather tedious in the first place, all the more reason as to why the topic should not be affirmed.

With that said, I now await my opponent's third round.
Debate Round No. 2
manutdredseal46

Pro

>Apologies for any tardiness of my response and I thank my opponent for his... sort of...

>My opponent has begun to play semantics with me. I do not know whether this is a test or some other sort of idea but I can still refute it and shall do so. As my opponent say, I am in favor of those who are very young not having the abilities to make large decisions. Right here, in this situation, I am saying that the ends outweigh the means. To clarify this, I mean that though the individuals in question are making this decision at a very young age, it is still better than the other method because at least this way these people have a choice.

My opponent remains unsatisfied with my burden of proof. My last example, reader, in my last comment:

"A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like.

B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage." You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years."

I still believe this is an excellent reason because... well... Which would you rather?

>To answer my opponent's second question:

That could be plausible. It could work sort of like license plates do now (personalized ones). If your number was already taken, though, then too bad for you. You would just have to wait 5 YEARS OR LESS.

>My opponent has twisted my manner of answering his third question, again semantically. I believe I said that both could be used to persecute. I did not, however, say that my opponent was in any way correct. There are MORE NAMES that can be used to persecute (hence my example) than there are numbers.

>I will now answer my opponent's fourth question. A) See my arguments this round. B) I will indeed submit evidence. In America basically any foreign name can be made fun of. That leaves... thousands of choices. I can give my opponent a short list if he pleases. Numbers, however, are not so easy to make fun of. In fact, the opposite is easier. For example, if your name was 123456 I am sure many young kids could describe that as cool.

>To respond to 2a: It is impossible to choose your parents. It is possible to choose your name. These two are related how? Is my opponent proposing that we all choose our parents?

>Response to 2b: I do not have evidence that officially says that he did this. I have no police records in my residence. If my opponent would like me to attempt to acquire them I will, but do not expect me to have them from New York by the next time my argument is due. If my opponent wants to assume I am lying, it is his choice. But you, reader, do not have to make that same choice.

>My opponent has not really responded to my next point. He just says he agrees with the current system and then leaves it. Drop?

>My opponent has ignored my question probably because of the answer that would be given. Perhaps this is the reason for semantics. I will take this as a drop due to my above arguments.

>I look forward to my opponent's response.
Logical-Master

Con

First, in response to PRO suggesting that I have played semantics . . .

. . . I have "played" no semantics, ladies and gentleman. My opponent's statement had conflicted with his statement on the same matter in the previous round. In addition, I explained why there was still a problem even if we don't take the contradiction into consideration and that is the fact that PRO can't prove that individuals would have mental maturity to choose a name at the age of 5.

In this round, my opponent not only ignores the burden which I had demonstrated as belonging to him (he believes that individuals cannot make certain decisions without a certain level of mental development, yet he does nothing to show that individuals are mentally developed enough to handle the responsibility of name changing at the age of), but he does nothing more than claim that individuals making a name changing decision at a very young age is still better than the status quo since people at least have a choice. However, I honestly have no idea what PRO is going on about and I'm rather certain that you don't either. Individuals would have a choice in both scenarios. The only difference is the time at which individuals could make the choice.

RE: "My opponent remains unsatisfied with my burden of proof. My last example, reader, in my last comment"

PRO ones again tries to mention his hypothetical situation which he had brought up in the previous round. Nevertheless, he has done nothing to answer the arguments which I claim sufficiently answer it. In the previous round, I demonstrated that the legal age is not what this debate concerns (the only reason I'm even arguing against PRO on said matter is because I wish to win with absolute efficiency)(hence, I could just as easily agree with PRO on the magical age of "5"). Thus, with this being the case, my system would be equal to PRO's. If a kid didn't like his name, he/she could change it at the age of 5. Thus, our society wouldn't have to go through the tedious transition of having numerical labels for their children. With that being said, the naming system would naturally be more efficient than PROs, thus superior.

>>>RE (3): "RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth"

Just to make sure everyone is on track: As you'll note in the previous rounds, I had asked PRO 4 questions in this section. Thus, I shall respond to this latest responses numerically from 1 to 4.

1) I don't see any place where PRO continued discussion on this one. In the previous round, I had demonstrated that PRO had conceded that his first argument is pointless given that it will grant no change. Basically, extend.

2) This is the key point to my position for this debate (that the legal age is actually irrelevant, thus, I could agree to the legal age which PRO provided and still uphold a system superior to the one PRO is proposing). Nowhere does PRO address this in his most recent round. Extend.

Although PRO does respond to my clarification on an additional question I had asked here. He points out that if someone has the number you want, you're screwed. Basically, lack of choice is an additional problem in this system which PRO is proposing.

3) I have twisted nothing. PRO agrees that both have the same problem. Both system having the same problem means no change, hence a concession on his system being pointless. As for there being more names, I shall talk about this in #4 below.

4) A) Don't bother. ;) B) That's not evidence. All my opponent has pointed out is that there are thousands of names which can be made fun of. Basically, his premise does not lead to his conclusion (that there are more names to make fun of than there are numbers). In addition, note how PRO ignores how I've pointed out that there is meaning associated with each and every number. To make fun of something, you need only distort its meaning. Given that every number has a meaning, one could very well distort any number. In the example I gave, it revolved around using numbers as a means of ranking (if one kid has a lower number than another kid, the kid with the lower number is deemed a "loser."

>>>RE(3) "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them."

A) Actually, using my opponent's approach to "fixing" problems, it is rather simple. If a child is bullied for having parents, the logical thing to do is simply allow the child to get new parents by being adopted.

B) I don't require that my opponent present evidence to officially suggest that his Uncle did anything. As suggested, even if his story wasn't so inherently flawed, it still wouldn't help him in this debate. What I wish to have is evidence which demonstrates the number of people who commit crimes to the degree which PRO's uncle had due to having a name which they did not like. Or how about evidence which demonstrates an individuals name as being directly correlated to violent behavior? There has not been one point in this debate where PRO has even attempted to provide legitimate evidence for the "dire" effects of having a name which you dislike.

>>>RE(3)"People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)"

I'm not sure what debate PRO is reading, but in THIS debate, I not only say I agree with the current system but I also ask why PRO brought it up when attempting to respond to my rebuttal here. In addition, if you'd be so kind as to take a quick gander back my previous round, you'll note that he essentially doesn't even lift a finger to rebut my rebuttal. Rather, he seems content with repeating himself ad nauseum.

>>>RE(3) "People deserve a choice in what their name is"

Finally, PRO accuses me of ignoring a question of his. Well, if you would be so kind as to look back at his R2 response, you'll note that there is no question posed towards me (the contender). If he is talking about the hypothetical scenario, that was in reference to the reader (his very words). In addition, I had preemptively dismantled his hypothetical earlier in my round and merely suggested that you refer back to it. So basically, no drops on my part.

Toodles.
Debate Round No. 3
manutdredseal46

Pro

>Thanks to my opponent, Logical-Master, for his response.

>I shall not say anything more on the topic of semantics except that my opponent blatantly used semantics to try to deflect my comment.

>My opponent goes back to his burden of proof argument, which is semi-valid. I do have a burden of proof. I think that I have fulfilled it as my opponent's refutations of my points (this is my opinion, but I believe it is fair) weak. He has not "killed" any of them.

>My opponent goes back to attempting to refute my hypothetical. It's not going to work. My hypothetical stands as:

"A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like.

B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage." You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years."

All of my opponent's refutations relate to my other arguments. While this is well and good, he has failed to actually answer the question. This avoidance indicates to me that he cannot answer it because he knows that I am right. I want him to give us a strait answer. I hope you agree with me.

>I apologize for not noticing my lack of response, it's hard to notice all of the numbers and letters. I hope that you, reader, understand. To respond:

1) Names that label > Numbers that label. End of response to this.

2) We are not here debating which is easiest, we are debating whether or not people should be named at birth. Though my method admittedly is more tedious, it is more supportive of personal happiness and well being which I personally value more than tediousness.

3) My opponent has clearly twisted this as he only pays attention half of my argument. I admit that it is possible for both to be criticized, but go on to say that this is LESS OF A RISK with numbers.

4) Same idea as the previous, my opponent has ignored half of my argument. He states that:

"In addition, note how PRO ignores how I've pointed out that there is meaning associated with each and every number. To make fun of something, you need only distort its meaning. Given that every number has a meaning, one could very well distort any number. In the example I gave, it revolved around using numbers as a means of ranking (if one kid has a lower number than another kid, the kid with the lower number is deemed a 'loser.'"

I have clearly stated that there is less of a risk with numbers. My opponent clearly ignores this so... yeah, that's about it.

> My responses to the next A and B:

A) My opponent cannot correctly assume that the same logic applies to everything. This is not a universal concept at all. For example, logic states that species should not kill one another. While this is true in general, it can sometimes happen for various reasons. Logic is not universal to all problems.

B) My opponent asks for evidence which I can understand perfectly well. Fact is, I do not have it as the internet does not provide help on such questions as these. It doesn't make me wrong, but means that there is no formal evidence for this part of the topic. What I CAN say is that nobody will have a guarantee of liking their name UNLESS they choose it themselves. According to http://www.ssa.gov... the most common names (for boys in the United States being newly born) are:

1 Jacob

2 Michael

3 Ethan

4 Joshua

5 Daniel

6 Christopher

7 Anthony

8 William

9 Matthew

10 Andrew

I do not know the personal preferences of my opponent, but personally I would be satisfied with 5 of these 10 names. Perhaps my opponent will agree that the children in question deserve choice even before they can legally change their names.

>As my opponent goes back to names fitting a person (or not):

I keep talking about my hypothetical. This is a pretty good argument. Here it is (again):

"A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like.

B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage." You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years."

I keep asking my opponent to respond to this. As he has not, I cannot know where he stands.

>On my opponent's argument: YES I do want him to answer my hypothetical. All of his refutations have been rebutted by me so I would like him to answer it.

>Thanks to my opponent for this debate. It is out of my hands now. Vote PRO.
Logical-Master

Con

RE(4): "I shall not say anything more on the topic of semantics except that my opponent blatantly used semantics to try to deflect my comment."

I've provided an explanation on this accusation in the previous round. PRO seems content with ignoring it. That's fine and dandy, but unfortunately, this counts as a drop. Not to mention the fact that I had even gone so far as to provide an explanation that did not concern the fact that he was literally contradicting himself. Blatantly ignoring arguments is bad form and most certainly sufficient reason to vote someone down on conduct.

>>>RE(4): "My opponent goes back to attempting to refute my hypothetical. It's not going to work. My hypothetical stands as . . ."

Ladies and gentleman, once again, my opponent does nothing more than repeat himself. This is the ad nauseum fallacy at work. He then goes on to say that my refutations relate to the other arguments (without even attempting to explain why this is the case, I might add), but if you've read my previous rounds, you should know better (ESPECIALLY given my thorough explanations as to how they dismantle PRO's hypothetical). So basically, you should see this as a drop. Given that I've clearly explained my argument in two rounds (back to back), I see no reason to do so once more.

>>>RE(4): "My opponent goes back to his burden of proof argument, which is semi-valid. I do have a burden of proof. I think that I have fulfilled it . . ."

*sigh*

Ladies and gentleman, there is not one place where PRO has even ATTEMPTED to fulfill his burden of proof. It was his task to demonstrate as to how individuals whom are at the age of 5 are mentally capable of handling the responsibility of a name change (rather than the age of 18). To suggest that he has by any means fulfilled is as far from the truth as the edge of the milky way galaxy is from "Bob's Caf´┐Ż" in New York city.

>>>RE(4): ""RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth"

Again, just to insure that you're all on track, this is the section that concerned the initial 4 questions which I had asked in the first round.

1) Names that label > Numbers that label? I guess my opponent wholeheartedly concedes then.

2) Given that the level of "easiness" would be a reason to determine whether or not people should be named at birth, I fail to see how it would irrelevant to the debate. At any rate, my opponent does admit to his system being tedious. He goes on to say that his system supports personal happiness and well being (which he values more than tediousness), however, given that tediousness detracts personal happiness and well being, he is merely hurting his own argument.

However, to get back to the main issue on this point, we could just as easily give 5 year old the option of changing their names while not having to go through the process of disabling parents from naming their children at birth. Given how I've shown that kids could very well dislike the numbers that are assigned to them (just as they could dislike their names), this is the most efficient course of action as not only will there not being an extra layer of red tape involved in keeping track of individuals names, not only will parents still have the satisfaction of being the ones to initially name their children, but we won't have to go through the long and tedious transition that shall no doubt take place if numbers are immediately replaced with names. Once more, I assert that this is the key argument to the debate as it takes note of PRO's complaints while negating his very own system. In addition, it renders PRO's hypothetical argument obsolete as I've explained in the previous 2 rounds.

3) If I have twisted anything, PRO is free to demonstrate how this is the case. Given that he hasn't, you have no reason to consider his plea. Like in the last round, I'll address the additional statement added to this point below.

4) My fair audience, this is merely another example of where my opponent does nothing more than repeat himself while doing nothing to rebut my argument. He says he has clearly stated that there is less of risk of numbers and he bases this on the idea that one cannot mock someone else with a numerical as much as they can with a lettered name . . . but through merely taking a gander at the very passage of my rebuttal which he is quoting, you shall note how I demonstrate that there is meaning associated with each number, therefore making it possible to mock any numerical name. In that passage, I even go so far as to provide an example of what I am talking about through demonstrating how kids could use numerical names as a sign a rank (whoever has the highest number is the best and whoever has the lowest number is the worst).

>>>RE(4) "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them."

A) PRO has gotten rather desperate. Rather than ACTUALLY respond to my argument, he attempts to argue that logic should not be used here, since logic is not universal to all problems. In attempt to support his claim, he argues that logic states that species should not kill one another and that while true in general, it can sometimes happen for various reasons. In response, logic says nothing about species not killing one another. PRO is thinking of MORALITY (which, depending on the context, can actually be seen as subjective, but I won't get into that here). Second, we're debating on whether or not individuals should be named at birth based on logic. For PRO to reject logic now is rather absurd (unless PRO wishes to admit that his entire position is illogical).

Given the above facts, PRO does not respond to my point being made here, thus it therefore considered a drop on his part.

B) PRO admits to having no evidence that support the individuals are likely to commit dangerous acts based on having a bad name. Furthermore, throughout the entire debate, he has failed to answer my points concerning his original story. Thus, you have no reason to consider his argument on this matter.

As for choosing names themselves being a guarantee of liking, not necessarily, but given that I have shown support of the current name changing system, PRO's source and argument have absolutely nothing to do with the debate.

>>>RE(4)"People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)"

There doesn't even seem to be an attempt from my opponent to continue this part of the debate. Rather, PRO simply tries to apply his hypothetical argument here. Unfortunately (and as insisted above), I've beaten this to death with my compromising solution which was originally brought up in the part of this debate which concerned my second question. PRO's problem is that he does not quite grasp that I've eliminated the age (whether one is able to change their name at 5 or 16) matter from even being an issue (as far back as R2) given that the resolution does not concern the legal age of the current name changing system and that it is easy to advocate my stance while agreeing with my opponent on whether or not the legal age for the current systems is correct. At any rate, given that this is the case, I have no reason to consider PRO's hypothetical, thus will not answer it.

>>>RE(4) "People deserve a choice in what their name is"

See above.

>>>CONCLUSION:

As you can see, throughout most of this final round, PRO does nothing more than repeat himself ad nauseum. He essentially ignores my entire argument. Thus, he has failed to uphold his stance. In addition, as you can see during our discussion over my 4 questions, all of the problems which PRO claims to be in the current system exist in his own system. His system grants no change (in terms of solving problems) and is will be rather tedious if we attempt to put it into motion (as even he admits during this round). It is therefore injudicious to uphold PRO's plan.

Thanks for the debate. Vote CON! :D
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
I fell that you should be named, but it shouldn't be ur name till you say that its your name.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"You're neglecting what their interests would be years in the future."

This is exactly what you're doing in insisting that kids name themselves at the age of 5. Heck, when I was five years old, I wanted to be called Batman. :D

"They are not developed et but they are still a person. "

Indeed so, but having a name given by their parents as well as eating healthy foods for dinner is certainly no reason to suggest that they aren't being treated like a person.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
You're neglecting what their interests would be years in the future. They are not developed et but they are still a person.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"Parents don't name by what the kid wants, they name by what they want."

Yes, just as the same applies for my examples. In each case, both the parents and the kids are most commonly at conflict. You say that the parents are looking out for their kids interest, but if their kids have entirely different interest (such as eating candy for dinner rather than having chicken and vegetables . . . or wanting to stay up till 12:00 am in spite of the fact that their parents wish for them to go to bed as early as 8:00 pm), then it IS only in the parents' interest. As long as you uphold the parents having control of the examples I've cited, you are upholding a double standard in going against the parent's being the ones who name their children.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
Considering that I disagree with most traditions this should be expected of me.

This is again the universality of logic. Clearly parents look out for the kid's interests in your examples but only for themselves in their naming. Parents don't name by what the kid wants, they name by what they want.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
If the culture transitions to "number names", then it's going to be numbers. In addition, I think I covered the potential for numbers quite well during the debate so I won't repeat myself.

As for something which wasn't advocated during the round (mainly because I thought everything which was presented was sufficient), lets explore your "a 5 year old child would likely make a better decision than his/her parents." By your line of thought, should we advocate that children of a mostly young age decide what they wish to eat for dinner? How about what school they go to (or if they should even have the choice to go to school for that matter)? How about the specific time at which they go to bed? How about being allowed to mimic the stunt men on television who perform seemingly dangerous stunts?

. . . . . . my thoughts exactly.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
Again that comes down to likeliness. Are you more likely to be made fun of for a name or for a number? I think a name. And if you choose a name yourself then you probably would make a better decision than parents.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I don't know how long this has been up. People will find a reason to tease and ridicule you. "

Yeah, I pretty much alluded to this. People will mock you regardless of whether or not you have a name which they deem as mockable. It all comes down to motivation (typically, the "tormenters" are those who are insecure about themselves and using the all of the insults as a means of hiding the aforementioned insecurities).
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
I don't know how long this has been up. People will find a reason to tease and ridicule you. Using the movie "Big Daddy" as an example, a 6 year old decides to call himself Frankenstein. I know between the ages of 6-10, I would have went with Wolverine. Honestly, even today, I might still go with Wolverine. As a child, you're still being controlled by base emotions. I would even go so far as most adults can't take it seriously (http://www.wayodd.com...).

Just let parents make a name.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I don't want to sound blunt or evil in saying this . . ."

It matters little to me. Be as blunt as evil as you wish . . . just make sure your execution isn't dull or overly emotional. That kind of stuff bores me.

"but most prosecutors wouldn't call witnesses to the stand to say that their story was unlikely. They'd call only people who would defend their side of the case. "

Yeah, I meant a prosecutor cross examing a witness used by the defense attourney or vice versa. As someone who has been involved with mock trial in the past, I find this bit to be to pretty fun. :D

Night. :)
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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 ally93 8 years ago
ally93
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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 Jerred102 8 years ago
Jerred102
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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 paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by FeatherintheWind 8 years ago
FeatherintheWind
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
manutdredseal46Logical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:24