Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Franklin Roosevelt put Japanese citizens in concentration camps, is it illegal to name your kid after him?Many people are unaware of that. And anyway, he was an American president, much more closer to home.And it's not like he's the equivalent of Hitler? Andrew Jackson slaughter thousands of Native Americas, is it illegal to name your kid after him?Again, he is not as known nor has been as significant as Hitler.AND the reputation Hitler has, who in the world wouldn't bully a child with that name?Offense =/= grounds to take away rights. Thats the problem with you Democrats, anytime someone gets offended you have to take someone's rights away.Oh so they must feel so depressed after they couldn't make their child have a weird name, which would result in the feeling different, and ridiculed in his school life after it, longing to be like everyone else with a normal name.So you'll ban not just offensive names, but odd or uncommon names to? You know, lets just have you make a list of 10 ten names, an if the name isn't on the list your child can't be named it.Names that are too stupid that will cause bullying to the child, and make the child feel different in a bad way should not be encouraged. Do you give a shit about how the child would feel about being different? What do you think all of the other immatured children will think when they find someone called "Cash Babeh" or "Pumpkins". I know people with names such as Zion, Felix, Keetly ect. none of them are tormented.THOSE ARE NOT THE ONES I AM TALKING ABOUT IF YOU HAVE SEEN MY EXAMPLES.These names are alright, and I'd consider them normal. Its an exaggeration because you assume that if a child has a slightly odd name they will suffer a life of torment.But we are not talking about slightly odd names. Without regulations, anyone can make completely odd names. The sky is the limit. They will have traumatic experiences in their youth which will effect them further in life.Children are usually bullied for being fat, having glasses, having an accent, having a strange interest, being short or for no other reason that some bully being bored. So what is it going to be? Are you going to regulate weight, glasses, accents and interests or accept the fact that most bullies will pick on a kid for no other reason then they are angry or bored.THIS IS SO STUPID AND IRRELEVANT.WHAT THE HELL IS THIS JUSTIFICATION? So just because there are other factors for people to be bullied makes it okay for people to have another reason more to bully them?Actually, false, high school is where children are most prone to being bullied.Research states that bullying occurs most often between ages 11-13.Its to much to ask for when a parent says "lets name our child [name you don't like here]" and then you kick in the door and yell "stop in the name of the law, that name is illegal!"Only when the name is too far fetched and inappropriate that regulations should apply. There would be no door kicking... exaggeration much?I am talking about names like Babyfoot, Bum-bum, Littleshit, or Orangepeel.What is so depressing about preventing these names? About 80% or 90% (can't remember the exact percentage) bullied during their lives, having them get a "normal" (matter of opinion) name would not stop this.Stupid logic again!IT WOULD PREVENT IT.I hate it when people ignore the word 'prevent'.Not everything has to be regulated, seriously, get out of these people's lives. Last time I checked only unloving parents name their kids stuff like "Bumfuck"There are families out there who are odd enough to find that an acceptable name. Others would treat naming their child as a joke.and due to human nature making almost all humans have an unconditional love for their offspring, there is a rather small chance of this happening.Sometimes it's bad if they love them too much that they would name them "Little munchkin" or "BubzCutie".HNNNNNGGGG XFRHTHSGHSEHSH =/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/==/=