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

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