People should not be named at birth

>Thanks to my opponent, Logical-Master, for his response. >I shall not say anything more on the topic of semantics except that my opponent blatantly used semantics to try to deflect my comment. >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 as my opponent's refutations of my points (this is my opinion, but I believe it is fair) weak. He has not "killed" any of them. >My opponent goes back to attempting to refute my hypothetical. It's not going to work. My hypothetical stands as: "A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like. B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage. " You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years. " All of my opponent's refutations relate to my other arguments. While this is well and good, he has failed to actually answer the question. This avoidance indicates to me that he cannot answer it because he knows that I am right. I want him to give us a strait answer. I hope you agree with me. >I apologize for not noticing my lack of response, it's hard to notice all of the numbers and letters. I hope that you, reader, understand. To respond: 1) Names that label > Numbers that label. End of response to this. 2) We are not here debating which is easiest, we are debating whether or not people should be named at birth. Though my method admittedly is more tedious, it is more supportive of personal happiness and well being which I personally value more than tediousness. 3) My opponent has clearly twisted this as he only pays attention half of my argument. I admit that it is possible for both to be criticized, but go on to say that this is LESS OF A RISK with numbers. 4) Same idea as the previous, my opponent has ignored half of my argument. He states that: "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. '" I have clearly stated that there is less of a risk with numbers. My opponent clearly ignores this so. .. yeah, that's about it. > My responses to the next A and B: A) My opponent cannot correctly assume that the same logic applies to everything. This is not a universal concept at all. For example, logic states that species should not kill one another. While this is true in general, it can sometimes happen for various reasons. Logic is not universal to all problems. B) My opponent asks for evidence which I can understand perfectly well. Fact is, I do not have it as the internet does not provide help on such questions as these. It doesn't make me wrong, but means that there is no formal evidence for this part of the topic. What I CAN say is that nobody will have a guarantee of liking their name UNLESS they choose it themselves. According to . http://www.ssa.gov... the most common names (for boys in the United States being newly born) are: 1 Jacob 2 Michael 3 Ethan 4 Joshua 5 Daniel 6 Christopher 7 Anthony 8 William 9 Matthew 10 Andrew I do not know the personal preferences of my opponent, but personally I would be satisfied with 5 of these 10 names. Perhaps my opponent will agree that the children in question deserve choice even before they can legally change their names. >As my opponent goes back to names fitting a person (or not): I keep talking about my hypothetical. This is a pretty good argument. Here it is (again): "A. Your name is 352397. In 5 years you can make this whatever you like. B. Your name is (making this up here) Jakawahjaslavituviofitrinihsruwton. This is (not really, example) Arabia for "ugly mudslinger of dorky heritage. " You are exiled and mocked because of your name. You can only change is in 16 years under the assumption that you get permission from your parents. If not (they are proud of your name so this is the case here) you cannot change it for 18 years. " I keep asking my opponent to respond to this. As he has not, I cannot know where he stands. >On my opponent's argument: YES I do want him to answer my hypothetical. All of his refutations have been rebutted by me so I would like him to answer it. >Thanks to my opponent for this debate. It is out of my hands now.