Names should be used

I would like to apologize for not being able to respond to my opponent's arguments The word entity in the accepted definition of name provided by my opponent is "a word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others," refers to a physical object such as a chair. So, my argument on the topic does stand. My argument was that names serve the purpose of identification in society. Any attributions to ethnicity and religion provided by the names means nothing because the name serves to identify the person. Without identification you are faced with some problems. It is often unclear about who is talking to who, who is mentioning who, who implies who, etc. Thus, names provide for easy comprehension and more efficiency. More efficiency in that less time is taken pointing out who you are talking about and such similar tasks. I had not conceded the point of my opponent in relation of names to ethnicities and religions, etc. of the beings being described. I stated this in round 1 and referred back to it in round 2. Next, my opponent states that I contradict myself about entities and names. But I do not. My argument was that names of entities are references to the actions of the entities and so entities are not restricted to names. When anyone says Osama Bin Laden, the first thought is terrorist not Islamic extremist. His actions are referred to by his name. Basically, the actions of the entity define the name. **This example is just an example not meant to provoke any debate. ** My opponent's response was that my argument was contradicted by the definition. Here is the definition of name: "a word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others. " Designated means "to mark or point out; indicate; show; specify. " And distinguished means "conspicuous; marked. " Both of these definitions mean nothing other than identify. This makes my opponent's argument amount to just about nothing. When it comes to defining an entity, my opponent says that he would have to write a hundred pages to clearly and distinctly define himself. And, as the usual definition is no more than a line, he says that entities cannot be defined. Looking at this, I see a huge flaw in my opponent's argument. This is that the definition of definition says nothing about length. Just simply "the act of making clear and distinct. " Famous people are defined by their actions. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr. , we know exactly who he is because of what he has done. Therefore actions do define entities. The simple sequence provided by my opponent is not true, it does not fit what actually is. Instead it should be as such: Entity defines name => Name identifies the entity = Entity defines entity (through actions) => Names should be used ------------------------------------- Round 3 ------------------------------------- I do not wish to provide an excuse for my procrastination. My opponent claims that I cannot create or formulate new arguments, but if this was true I could not have written what I have above. Secondly, I do not think that a winner can be determined in a debate because the opponent (me) did not respond in time. That also means that I have not dropped all my arguments and my opponent's. To back myself, I provide the following example: -- In a test match (cricket if you do not know) in 1958, I believe, the Indian team won against England and only played the first innings. During the second innings, the Indians were not able to bat due to the rain. From this I conclude that the debater with the arguments with better quality should win. My forfeit should mean little or nothing to the decision made by the voter. I will also point out that my opponent has stressed the fact that I have forfeited a round to a great amount, making it seem that he has little or no confidence in his argument. With that in mind, I strongly urge you vote PRO when the time comes. I await my opponent's response.