Names should be used

>I thank my esteemed opponent for his response. >I would like to firstly note that any "ï¿½ƒï¿½',ï¿½ƒï¿½'" (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. <<<***MY OPPONENT HAS CONCEDED THE POINT (MINE) OF THE RELATION OF A NAME TO ETHNICITY OR RELIGION, ETC. OF THE BEING BEING DESCRIBED BY THE NAME***>>> >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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com...): 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.