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

"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." So if there is no real individuality to a name except what we make of it, this entire debate is moot. Since you have openly admitted to me that we cannot be individual based on our names, the concept of a name pool has no relevence on individuality whatsoever. "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." So then, who's to say what's absurd or unindividual about this. It is a farce to believe that the sole purpose of a site is to suggest names for a person without consulting the creator first. This, in itself, would prove that they made it with the intent you described. "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." So, from what you've said, it sifts those who actually use their creativity and individuality therefore, if one rarely uses creativity, it would affect the name of their baby, not the name pool. "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. ..." I am rather confused. Did you not say the name has no relevance on a person's individuality? From this paragraph down, you speak of a name as if it is the only description, rather than personality reigning over a name. "Yes, I understand the hypothetical and see your point, but this scenario is probably very rare. " Perhaps with the name Steve but several of my friends had given birth and named their child only to find out that the name had been created before hand. My opponent has gone in two different directions. One, he says our names represent us. Then, in his R2, he claims that the names hold no relevance besides putting a name to the personality. From half of his speech down, you see the logical fallacy in his debate. My opponent has dropped and/or agreed with my points. Now, let's recap: 1)A "Name Pool" can help promote individuality (As my opponent has agreed to) 2) People who generally have a creative mind generally will use it. 3) A name holds no relevance except to give a correlation between a picture or idea with a vocalised word. For the above reasons and refutations above, you vote CON. Thanks (And thanks for being a good sport and holding back your R3.) -EG