People should not be named at birth

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.