People should not be named at birth

First, in response to PRO suggesting that I have played semantics . . . . . . I have "played" no semantics, ladies and gentleman. My opponent's statement had conflicted with his statement on the same matter in the previous round. In addition, I explained why there was still a problem even if we don't take the contradiction into consideration and that is the fact that PRO can't prove that individuals would have mental maturity to choose a name at the age of 5. In this round, my opponent not only ignores the burden which I had demonstrated as belonging to him (he believes that individuals cannot make certain decisions without a certain level of mental development, yet he does nothing to show that individuals are mentally developed enough to handle the responsibility of name changing at the age of), but he does nothing more than claim that individuals making a name changing decision at a very young age is still better than the status quo since people at least have a choice. However, I honestly have no idea what PRO is going on about and I'm rather certain that you don't either. Individuals would have a choice in both scenarios. The only difference is the time at which individuals could make the choice. RE: "My opponent remains unsatisfied with my burden of proof. My last example, reader, in my last comment" PRO ones again tries to mention his hypothetical situation which he had brought up in the previous round. Nevertheless, he has done nothing to answer the arguments which I claim sufficiently answer it. In the previous round, I demonstrated that the legal age is not what this debate concerns (the only reason I'm even arguing against PRO on said matter is because I wish to win with absolute efficiency)(hence, I could just as easily agree with PRO on the magical age of "5"). Thus, with this being the case, my system would be equal to PRO's. If a kid didn't like his name, he/she could change it at the age of 5. 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. >>>RE (3): "RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth" Just to make sure everyone is on track: As you'll note in the previous rounds, I had asked PRO 4 questions in this section. Thus, I shall respond to this latest responses numerically from 1 to 4. 1) I don't see any place where PRO continued discussion on this one. In the previous round, I had demonstrated that PRO had conceded that his first argument is pointless given that it will grant no change. Basically, extend. 2) This is the key point to my position for this debate (that the legal age is actually irrelevant, thus, I could agree to the legal age which PRO provided and still uphold a system superior to the one PRO is proposing). Nowhere does PRO address this in his most recent round. Extend. Although PRO does respond to my clarification on an additional question I had asked here. He points out that if someone has the number you want, you're screwed. Basically, lack of choice is an additional problem in this system which PRO is proposing. 3) I have twisted nothing. PRO agrees that both have the same problem. Both system having the same problem means no change, hence a concession on his system being pointless. As for there being more names, I shall talk about this in #4 below. 4) A) Don't bother. ;) B) That's not evidence. All my opponent has pointed out is that there are thousands of names which can be made fun of. Basically, his premise does not lead to his conclusion (that there are more names to make fun of than there are numbers). In addition, note how PRO ignores how I've pointed out that there is meaning associated with each and every number. To make fun of something, you need only distort its meaning. Given that every number has a meaning, one could very well distort any number. In the example I gave, it revolved around using numbers as a means of ranking (if one kid has a lower number than another kid, the kid with the lower number is deemed a "loser." >>>RE(3) "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them." A) Actually, using my opponent's approach to "fixing" problems, it is rather simple. If a child is bullied for having parents, the logical thing to do is simply allow the child to get new parents by being adopted. B) I don't require that my opponent present evidence to officially suggest that his Uncle did anything. As suggested, even if his story wasn't so inherently flawed, it still wouldn't help him in this debate. What I wish to have is evidence which demonstrates the number of people who commit crimes to the degree which PRO's uncle had due to having a name which they did not like. Or how about evidence which demonstrates an individuals name as being directly correlated to violent behavior? There has not been one point in this debate where PRO has even attempted to provide legitimate evidence for the "dire" effects of having a name which you dislike. >>>RE(3)"People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)" I'm not sure what debate PRO is reading, but in THIS debate, I not only say I agree with the current system but I also ask why PRO brought it up when attempting to respond to my rebuttal here. In addition, if you'd be so kind as to take a quick gander back my previous round, you'll note that he essentially doesn't even lift a finger to rebut my rebuttal. Rather, he seems content with repeating himself ad nauseum. >>>RE(3) "People deserve a choice in what their name is" Finally, PRO accuses me of ignoring a question of his. Well, if you would be so kind as to look back at his R2 response, you'll note that there is no question posed towards me (the contender). If he is talking about the hypothetical scenario, that was in reference to the reader (his very words). In addition, I had preemptively dismantled his hypothetical earlier in my round and merely suggested that you refer back to it. So basically, no drops on my part. Toodles.