The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The concept of having a pool of "real names" to choose from is absured and discourages individuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,146 times Debate No: 3864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Harlan

Pro

To define is to limit. This simple principle is true in almost all scenarios. A person is to complex to be accurately described with man-made language and to give definitions will only limit them in thier potential.

There is, though, one term or adjective that will properly describe a person without limiting them: thier name. A name should be a thing, for the most part, unique, so as to incourage individuality, and so a name can be a true description and adjective to each person. The concept of naming people is most definitely a good one, but it is silly for there to be a set list of "real names", or even to bother repeating the same name several times, between people who share absolutely no connection.

Society has so come to accept this concept of choosing from a list of already-existing names for their child, that it seems absurd to people to hear of a name which was completely invented by the parent. They will say, skeptically, "is that even a real name?!". And the answer is: of course it is. If someone is named something, it's, in effect, a real name. How can there possibly be such a thing as a fake name?

Some names are used so frequently that two people of the same name are friends, or are regularly in the same environment. If someone is frequently in the presence of someone with the same title as them, then they cannot truly have a unique description; adjective; title of themselves. This discourages individuality, and has no logic behind it.

We may fool ourselves that they're are plenty of names to have individuality, but if this were true, how is it almost instantly recognizable, within you're culture to determine whether something is a "real" name? Think of a person at random that you know, and I bet you that you have either heard thier name before you met them, or know someone else with the name. It is then not the only thing that you associate the name with, and therefore not a truly unique title of them.

Many people are given a name that millions of other people have. This is in no way individuality, and is a complete contradiction of purpose of naming people. Why have names at all if they are not unique?

It is fundamentally absurd to reuse a name as frequently as is done. There is no reason for this, and it only serves to discourage individualism.

Even I, with a very uncommon name, find it frequently in the media, or elsewhere.

-Harlan
draxxt

Con

Thanks for procuring this debate. I'm sure it will be a challenge.

I will attempt to refute my opponent's argument before I begin my framework.

"To define is to limit. This simple principle is true in almost all scenarios. A person is to{o} complex to be accurately described with man-made language and to give definitions will only limit them in thier potential."

The first sentence here is absolute. The second is contrary.

But, by then on, you see that my opponent has clearly been given the impression everyone can choose their own names. At birth, as the legal system goes, we are given our names by those who birth us: Our parents. This ensures the government can keep tabs on us as a whole and gives us certain sustainable continuities. That being said, it isn't originally OUR name. It is the name our parents give us at birth. In a sense, it is their name before it is bestowed upon us.

"The concept of naming people is most definitely a good one, but it is silly for there to be a set list of "real names", or even to bother repeating the same name several times, between people who share absolutely no connection."

Now, when I hear the term "real names" I am under the impression he means currently existing names. This is a farce on my opponent's side as a pool of "real names" would actually encourage certain parents to be original and make up names that would correspond to their originality. If a pool of real names were to be introduced, parent's with originality would most likely use it... The originality, that is. Therefore, a pool of real names actually encourages naturally original parents to be just that.

"Society has so come to accept this concept of choosing from a list of already-existing names for their child, that it seems absurd to people to hear of a name which was completely invented by the parent. They will say, skeptically, "is that even a real name?!". And the answer is: of course it is. If someone is named something, it's, in effect, a real name. How can there possibly be such a thing as a fake name? "

Be that as it may, if parent's delve in a pool of preexisting names, it is only their fault for not having enough originality to think outside of the possibilities given to them.

There is no fake name and I agree with my opponent in that aspect. That being said, once a name is made, no matter how original or different it may be, becomes a real name and is therefore, added to the "real names" pool. Once the notion is put in the air "I can name my son (josh, steven, harlan, eli, suzy) One takes that into consideration and then either applies it or uses it in a contrast against the names they want.

"Some names are used so frequently that two people of the same name are friends, or are regularly in the same environment. If someone is frequently in the presence of someone with the same title as them, then they cannot truly have a unique description; adjective; title of themselves. This discourages individuality, and has no logic behind it."

That is why last and middle names are rather useful. I know you may argue that some may be juniors and thirds, but in reality it isn't the name that defines the person, it's their actions and how they live their life.

"We may fool ourselves that they're are plenty of names to have individuality, but if this were true, how is it almost instantly recognizable, within you're culture to determine whether something is a "real" name? Think of a person at random that you know, and I bet you that you have either heard thier name before you met them, or know someone else with the name. It is then not the only thing that you associate the name with, and therefore not a truly unique title of them."

This is also a farce as my opponent attempts to defend the fact that names are not individual. Simply because preexisting names are not individual and original, does not mean that the person associated with it has anything there to hinder it. A person is NOT defined by their names. Also, saying that allowing people to see what already exists in order to produce the opportunity to consider a name not already recorded is a splendid idea.

"Many people are given a name that millions of other people have. This is in no way individuality, and is a complete contradiction of purpose of naming people. Why have names at all if they are not unique?"

Consider this:

Jane has a child
Jane has never heard the name "Steve"
She names her son "Steve" thinking she was original.

Steve is, in my opinion and in a google search (http://www.google.com... 276 million results) a very common name.

Jane did not know the name Steve existed therefore she was original.

"It is fundamentally absurd to reuse a name as frequently as is done. There is no reason for this, and it only serves to discourage individualism."

My opponent did not explain how anyone is refusing a name.

"Even I, with a very uncommon name, find it frequently in the media, or elsewhere."

Did you mean the name you were given? because a google search produces 9,980,000 results:

http://www.harlan.com...

http://www.cityofharlan.com...

http://www.zwire.com...

Just to name a few. although just under ten million is far less common than "Steve" it is still very common in itself.

Actually... I believe my framework can easily be infered by the above refutations and in light of those reasons and refutations, you vote CON.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.

I will take this one at a time…

"But, by then on, you see that my opponent has clearly been given the impression everyone can choose their own names…"

It is impossible for an infant to consciously name themselves…so obviously the best party to provide the name is the parents. At first glance this may seem to prove that a name is not a unique title to represent the individual. We may ask our selves: "how can this possibly be a definition of me, if someone else invented it?" In reality, we define our names, and appropriate them and make them our own. The actual vocalization of the name is, in the grand scheme, irrelevant. The important factor is that they are unique, so that they may become an individual title for us. I assert that it is, for the most part, irrelevant who invents the actual vocalization of the name.

"Now, when I hear the term "real names" I am under the impression he means currently existing names. This is a farce on my opponent's side as a pool of "real names" would actually encourage certain parents to be original and make up names that would correspond to their originality. If a pool of real names were to be introduced, parent's with originality would most likely use it... The originality, that is. Therefore, a pool of real names actually encourages naturally original parents to be just that."

There is a clear social expectation that a child be given a name that is already deemed a "real name". When I say "real name", I mean a name considered to be a real name by society. To try to deny such a pool of "real names" is silly.

In fact, some people have gone as far as to try and outline all of these real names, such as this site: http://www.babynames.com.... While many of these names are lesser known, and would be considered to be fake, by many people, it certainly proves that there is a perceived pool of real names.

Yes, there are some people who give their kids names completely of their own conception(like you said, as a result of the pool of names), but this is extremely rare. This does not have any serious impact however. As we have seen, there IS a perceived pool of real names, yet still people insist on choosing a name from this list, rather than creating one.

"Be that as it may, if parent's delve in a pool of preexisting names, it is only their fault for not having enough originality to think outside of the possibilities given to them."

And the statement I am arguing is that it is absurd of them to do so, and that it discourages individuality. You seem to agree with me here, saying that it is their "fault". Are you conceding then?

"There is no fake name and I agree with my opponent in that aspect. That being said, once a name is made, no matter how original or different it may be, becomes a real name and is therefore, added to the "real names" pool. Once the notion is put in the air "I can name my son (josh, steven, harlan, eli, suzy) One takes that into consideration and then either applies it or uses it in a contrast against the names they want."

Yes, but how often are names being "made"? The vast majority of society (and since the subject of this debate is society, we should focus on society) is only re-using names from the pool of real names. The common trend is not to enlarge the pool of names, but to pick from the names already there. The notion of having a pool of names in the first place is positively ridiculous. It is silly to choose a name held by millions of people not associated with your self.

"That is why last and middle names are rather useful"

Yes, your last name serves to provide family identity…but your first name is individual identity…or at least that's what it's supposed to be. If someone else has the same first name, you have that much less individual identity.

"in reality it isn't the name that defines the person, it's their actions and how they live their life."

Yes, this is true…but isn't it nice to have one word to mean all of that? In effect, you provide the definition of the name, which is a word for yourself, with your actions. The name summarizes all that. Your name is an identification, a title.

"Also, saying that allowing people to see what already exists in order to produce the opportunity to consider a name not already recorded is a splendid idea."

1. that is much different than choosing a name from a pool of names.
2. You're right, it would be a splendid idea to say that, maybe you should say it.

"Jane did not know the name Steve existed therefore she was original."

Yes, I understand the hypothetical and see your point, but this scenario is probably very rare.

"My opponent did not explain how anyone is refusing a name."

Your right, I didn't…I never claimed such a thing…what's your point?

My opponent has put too much stress on the term "originality", (and focused on the parents excessively) when I mentioned nothing originally about originality. This is not about the capacity of the parents or how original they were, or their merits in naming people, nor do I condemn the parents, but merely the societal trend of picking from a pool of "real names" rather than inventing one themselves.

He has provided no advantages to this trend. He has admitted himself that it is a "fault" of the parents if they do not invent their own name, and thus agreeing with the topic he is supposed to be opposing.

We have yet to see a logical reason as to why this system of picking from a pool of real names is advantageous or rational.

And using your earlier mentioned name "Steve", I set out to find just how common this name is.

According to http://www.namestatistics.com..., "0.246% of males in the US are named Steve." And "around 301350 US males are named Steve"

This is not individualism. If you are named Steve, you are just one in 500 males in the US.

Oh, it seems they have some sort of embedding thing at the bottom. What the hell, maybe it'll work:

steve is the #74 most common male first name

0.246% of males in the US are named steve.

Around 301350 US males are named steve!

source: namestatistics.com


If that didn't work…err never mind then. I just happened to notice they provided a code for it.

-Harlan
draxxt

Con

draxxt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

My opponent was, alas, unable to post his argument in time. However, it is quite obvious he did not do so because he could not think of a rebuttal, but that he was unable to do so, as he was tied up in other things. I ask you to not let this affect your voting.

Unfortunately, this 3 round debate will end abruptly, because of this, but, if my opponent agrees to it, we may find it necessary to extend this into another debate.

I bid good luck to my opponent.

-Harlan
draxxt

Con

"It is impossible for an infant to consciously name themselves…so obviously the best party to provide the name is the parents. At first glance this may seem to prove that a name is not a unique title to represent the individual. We may ask our selves: "how can this possibly be a definition of me, if someone else invented it?" In reality, we define our names, and appropriate them and make them our own. The actual vocalization of the name is, in the grand scheme, irrelevant. The important factor is that they are unique, so that they may become an individual title for us. I assert that it is, for the most part, irrelevant who invents the actual vocalization of the name."

So if there is no real individuality to a name except what we make of it, this entire debate is moot. Since you have openly admitted to me that we cannot be individual based on our names, the concept of a name pool has no relevence on individuality whatsoever.

"In fact, some people have gone as far as to try and outline all of these real names, such as this site: http://www.babynames.com....... While many of these names are lesser known, and would be considered to be fake, by many people, it certainly proves that there is a perceived pool of real names."

So then, who's to say what's absurd or unindividual about this. It is a farce to believe that the sole purpose of a site is to suggest names for a person without consulting the creator first. This, in itself, would prove that they made it with the intent you described.

"Yes, there are some people who give their kids names completely of their own conception(like you said, as a result of the pool of names), but this is extremely rare. This does not have any serious impact however. As we have seen, there IS a perceived pool of real names, yet still people insist on choosing a name from this list, rather than creating one."

So, from what you've said, it sifts those who actually use their creativity and individuality therefore, if one rarely uses creativity, it would affect the name of their baby, not the name pool.

"Yes, but how often are names being "made"? The vast majority of society (and since the subject of this debate is society, we should focus on society) is only re-using names from the pool of real names. The common trend is not to enlarge the pool of names, but to pick from the names already there. The notion of having a pool of names in the first place is positively ridiculous. It is silly to choose a name held by millions of people not associated with your self. ..."

I am rather confused. Did you not say the name has no relevance on a person's individuality? From this paragraph down, you speak of a name as if it is the only description, rather than personality reigning over a name.

"Yes, I understand the hypothetical and see your point, but this scenario is probably very rare. "

Perhaps with the name Steve but several of my friends had given birth and named their child only to find out that the name had been created before hand.

My opponent has gone in two different directions. One, he says our names represent us. Then, in his R2, he claims that the names hold no relevance besides putting a name to the personality.

From half of his speech down, you see the logical fallacy in his debate.
My opponent has dropped and/or agreed with my points.

Now, let's recap:

1)A "Name Pool" can help promote individuality (As my opponent has agreed to)

2) People who generally have a creative mind generally will use it.

3) A name holds no relevance except to give a correlation between a picture or idea with a vocalised word.

For the above reasons and refutations above, you vote CON.

Thanks (And thanks for being a good sport and holding back your R3.)
-EG
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
continued from last box...

-In your debate "Should laws outlawing blasphemy be introduced across the United States?"
( http://www.debate.org... ), you say thus:

"The only way to keep us from clubbing one another to death is by upholding morals that are beneficial to society as a whole...If you were to take away these laws which have become widely known as fact, We see our government would become somewhat resemblant of an *Anarchy*. While that might please certain members of the voting community, we see that the laws you surmise as "(having) no need for) then you are promoting a lawless society...Will you vote for the debator who sides with lawlessness and antiesteblishment? Or will you vote for the debator who is keeping firm the beliefs as well as the politics of blasphemy laws."

Well...I guess that will be about it. I am sorry if I have been harsh, but I am only hoping that I have hit hard enough to make an actual impact on my opponent. My hopes are that he shall concede. If, he does not, however (or finds some evasive semantics to wiggle his way out), This is a two round argument.

I have provided sufficient evidence to make it obvious to the reader of draxxt's hypocrisy in saying that he is an Anarchist.

PS. Please do not be insulted, this is all in the spirit of agressive debate

-Harlan
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Draxxt, I tried to challenge you to a debate, only to learn that you cant have to debates with the same person. So rather than wait, I decided to post what I had written here in the comments forum.

The Topic was "you are not an anarchist"...

I intend no malice in this, I'll have you know, but, with a quick glance at your profile, I have determined that you are not truly an anarchist (as your profile claims). Truthfully, I am only trying to help you...to realize that you are not an anarchist.

I will make this brief.

Here are 3 definitions of anarchism:

"1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" Bertrand Russell."

Any of these, or a combination of them, will work in my favor.

I will now make a list of why you are not an anarchist:

-The most obvious piece of evidence is that it says on your belief chart that you support the United States of America. This is pretty self explanatory, but here is some simple logic. Anarchy means no government. The United States...is a government.

-You are in favor of the death penalty. To punish (and kill) people as punishment for breaking a law would imply a government with laws...and enforcement of said laws.

-You are also in favor of flat tax. This also implies a government. There has to be a government to collect these said taxes. That is the point of taxes.

-You are also in favor of social programs. You need a government to supply these programs.

-You also support the war on terror. An anarchist would by default be opposed to the wars caused by confliction of different countries.

continued in next box...
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
LOL, yea, I have noticed that... but I still think it's hilarious. I just ignore the political side of it :P.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Renzzy,

Take no offense, and I don't mean to be nosy or anything, but I was surprised after reading your comment to see, on your profile...that your apparently very republican.

I really don't want to ruin the onion for you...I agre that it's hillarious, and I'm certainly not telling you you can't read and enjoy it, but the onion has a strong liberal bias in it's humor. I am a bit surprised you find it funny.

Probably less than half of thier news is actually political, so I guess thiers plenty of stuff any one can find funny, I guess.

http://www.theonion.com...

http://www.theonion.com...

http://www.theonion.com...
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
No Problem...do you need some more time?...because I can wait to post something, if you need more than 3 days.
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
Sorry I didn't post, I had some domestic problems.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I'd have to disagree with con...middle names aren't as important in deciding individuality. I know two Jamie Lynns. (three if you count Spears XD)
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
(http://youtube.com...)

My personal favorite. :D
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
I love The Onion. It makes me laugh. ;)
Posted by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
I was going to comment on that one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
HarlandraxxtTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
HarlandraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
HarlandraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30