People should not be named at birth

RE(4): "I shall not say anything more on the topic of semantics except that my opponent blatantly used semantics to try to deflect my comment. " I've provided an explanation on this accusation in the previous round. PRO seems content with ignoring it. That's fine and dandy, but unfortunately, this counts as a drop. Not to mention the fact that I had even gone so far as to provide an explanation that did not concern the fact that he was literally contradicting himself. Blatantly ignoring arguments is bad form and most certainly sufficient reason to vote someone down on conduct. >>>RE(4): "My opponent goes back to attempting to refute my hypothetical. It's not going to work. My hypothetical stands as . . . " Ladies and gentleman, once again, my opponent does nothing more than repeat himself. This is the ad nauseum fallacy at work. He then goes on to say that my refutations relate to the other arguments (without even attempting to explain why this is the case, I might add), but if you've read my previous rounds, you should know better (ESPECIALLY given my thorough explanations as to how they dismantle PRO's hypothetical). So basically, you should see this as a drop. Given that I've clearly explained my argument in two rounds (back to back), I see no reason to do so once more. >>>RE(4): "My opponent goes back to his burden of proof argument, which is semi-valid. I do have a burden of proof. I think that I have fulfilled it . . . " *sigh* Ladies and gentleman, there is not one place where PRO has even ATTEMPTED to fulfill his burden of proof. It was his task to demonstrate as to how individuals whom are at the age of 5 are mentally capable of handling the responsibility of a name change (rather than the age of 18). To suggest that he has by any means fulfilled is as far from the truth as the edge of the milky way galaxy is from "Bob's Cafï¿½" in New York city. >>>RE(4): ""RE: People may dislike the names given to them at birth" Again, just to insure that you're all on track, this is the section that concerned the initial 4 questions which I had asked in the first round. 1) Names that label > Numbers that label? I guess my opponent wholeheartedly concedes then. 2) Given that the level of "easiness" would be a reason to determine whether or not people should be named at birth, I fail to see how it would irrelevant to the debate. At any rate, my opponent does admit to his system being tedious. He goes on to say that his system supports personal happiness and well being (which he values more than tediousness), however, given that tediousness detracts personal happiness and well being, he is merely hurting his own argument. However, to get back to the main issue on this point, we could just as easily give 5 year old the option of changing their names while not having to go through the process of disabling parents from naming their children at birth. Given how I've shown that kids could very well dislike the numbers that are assigned to them (just as they could dislike their names), this is the most efficient course of action as not only will there not being an extra layer of red tape involved in keeping track of individuals names, not only will parents still have the satisfaction of being the ones to initially name their children, but we won't have to go through the long and tedious transition that shall no doubt take place if numbers are immediately replaced with names. Once more, I assert that this is the key argument to the debate as it takes note of PRO's complaints while negating his very own system. In addition, it renders PRO's hypothetical argument obsolete as I've explained in the previous 2 rounds. 3) If I have twisted anything, PRO is free to demonstrate how this is the case. Given that he hasn't, you have no reason to consider his plea. Like in the last round, I'll address the additional statement added to this point below. 4) My fair audience, this is merely another example of where my opponent does nothing more than repeat himself while doing nothing to rebut my argument. He says he has clearly stated that there is less of risk of numbers and he bases this on the idea that one cannot mock someone else with a numerical as much as they can with a lettered name . . . but through merely taking a gander at the very passage of my rebuttal which he is quoting, you shall note how I demonstrate that there is meaning associated with each number, therefore making it possible to mock any numerical name. In that passage, I even go so far as to provide an example of what I am talking about through demonstrating how kids could use numerical names as a sign a rank (whoever has the highest number is the best and whoever has the lowest number is the worst). >>>RE(4) "People could be given names at birth which would hinder them. " A) PRO has gotten rather desperate. Rather than ACTUALLY respond to my argument, he attempts to argue that logic should not be used here, since logic is not universal to all problems. In attempt to support his claim, he argues that logic states that species should not kill one another and that while true in general, it can sometimes happen for various reasons. In response, logic says nothing about species not killing one another. PRO is thinking of MORALITY (which, depending on the context, can actually be seen as subjective, but I won't get into that here). Second, we're debating on whether or not individuals should be named at birth based on logic. For PRO to reject logic now is rather absurd (unless PRO wishes to admit that his entire position is illogical). Given the above facts, PRO does not respond to my point being made here, thus it therefore considered a drop on his part. B) PRO admits to having no evidence that support the individuals are likely to commit dangerous acts based on having a bad name. Furthermore, throughout the entire debate, he has failed to answer my points concerning his original story. Thus, you have no reason to consider his argument on this matter. As for choosing names themselves being a guarantee of liking, not necessarily, but given that I have shown support of the current name changing system, PRO's source and argument have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. >>>RE(4)"People could be given names which have improper meanings (based on their way of life and personality)" There doesn't even seem to be an attempt from my opponent to continue this part of the debate. Rather, PRO simply tries to apply his hypothetical argument here. Unfortunately (and as insisted above), I've beaten this to death with my compromising solution which was originally brought up in the part of this debate which concerned my second question. PRO's problem is that he does not quite grasp that I've eliminated the age (whether one is able to change their name at 5 or 16) matter from even being an issue (as far back as R2) given that the resolution does not concern the legal age of the current name changing system and that it is easy to advocate my stance while agreeing with my opponent on whether or not the legal age for the current systems is correct. At any rate, given that this is the case, I have no reason to consider PRO's hypothetical, thus will not answer it. >>>RE(4) "People deserve a choice in what their name is" See above. >>>CONCLUSION: As you can see, throughout most of this final round, PRO does nothing more than repeat himself ad nauseum. He essentially ignores my entire argument. Thus, he has failed to uphold his stance. In addition, as you can see during our discussion over my 4 questions, all of the problems which PRO claims to be in the current system exist in his own system. His system grants no change (in terms of solving problems) and is will be rather tedious if we attempt to put it into motion (as even he admits during this round). It is therefore injudicious to uphold PRO's plan. Thanks for the debate. :D