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

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