Instigator / Pro
0
1510
rating
8
debates
68.75%
won
Topic
#5204
The names and labels people give us are a part of our identities
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Description
Position:
Pro must argue why the names and labels people give us are a part of our identity.
Con must argue why the names and labels people give us are not a part of our identity.
Vocab:
NAME (noun)
Definition: a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to
Label (noun)
Definition: a descriptive or identifying word or phrase
Rules:
1. The first round just introduces your argument and reasoning behind it. No evidence is needed. Once the second round starts, then evidence can be used.
2. The burden of proof is shared.
Regardless of the outcome, the goal of this debate to have a discussion and learn something.
Round 1
Pro
#1
My argument is about how names and labels are a part of our identity.
Name: noun
a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to
Label: noun
a descriptive or identifying word or phrase
“A part” (noun)
A small part of a whole
I wanted to establish the definitions of these words before I introduce my argument.
First, I want to clarify that I’m not arguing that assigned labels form your entire identity. I’m merely stating that they make up a part of it. Identity is the combination of experiences and social factors that form who you are. It's where your personality, beliefs, and behaviors stem from. However, people tend base their assumptions about us on one aspect of our identity. As a result, a label is placed on us, thus informing how we're viewed and treated. The same applies to our names, since people assign different meanings to them. Whether they're positive or not, names and labels are still a part of your identity because they impact your experiences and thus shape you. Additionally, constantly being given a certain label or name affects how you see yourself, which in turn can cause you to take on that label as a defining trait. Therefore, names and labels should be recognized as a part of who we are.
Con
#2
Name: nouna word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to
My opponent must defend that all names people give us are part of our identities.
Identity: nounthe distinguishing character or personality of an individual: INDIVIDUALITY
We can conclude that the topic is false, as names people give us can be made up names, insults, false accusations,
or simply non-"distinguishing character or personality of an individual" names, such as names which apply to anyone or many people which do not distinguish at all between different individuals or even all things and non-things, such as the name "You are something or not something".
My opponent must defend the position that every name, every insult, every name which means false accusation, every made up name, every general name...
are all a part of our distinguishing character or personality.
Now, since false accusations cannot be part of our character or personality since they are by definition not our character nor personality, I am curious how my opponent will defend his position.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent must defend that all names people give us are part of our identities.
The topic states how both names and labels are a part of our identity, not just names. Con only focused on one part of the topic. As much as both words seem to have similar meanings, they are two separate things. A name is more specific to an individual or object. In contrast, a label is a broader term, which can apply to a group or a concept. When Con pointed out how there are "general names", they were actually describing a label.
We can conclude that the topic is false, as names people give us can be made up names, insults, false accusations...
I agree with Con that false accusations, made up names, and insults do not accurately represent a person's character. However, those names, even with their negative connotation, do represent how one's character is presented. Identity isn't just our character; it's also how that character is presented to the world. The way our character is presented is influenced by others' perception of us. Based on that perception, our character can be assigned a positive or negative name.
Note: Ran out of time. I'll put the second part in next round.
Con
#4
Identity isn't just our character; it's also how that character is presented to the world.
This is false assumption and doesnt suit the given definition of identity.
My opponent tries to extend the definiton he used to what that definition doesnt include.
The definition says "character", not "how character is presented".
One doesnt need lots of thinking to conclude that character and how character is presented arent same things.
Since definition only includes character, it follows that my opponent's attempt at changing definition should be rejected.
Character definition:
"the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual"
Distinctive definition:
"characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others."
So my opponent must argue that false accusations, who by definition arent part of characteristics of a person, are part of characteristics of that person.
A logical contradiction, one can say.
The topic states how both names and labels are a part of our identity, not just names.
The word "and" in the topic means both must be true for you to be right.
So if just one is wrong, you are wrong.
Thats the difference between "and" and "or".
Round 3
Pro
#5
This is false assumption and doesn't suit the given definition of identity.
I admit that Con is right about my point not matching the definition I gave for identity. So, I'll try a different approach.
So my opponent must argue that false accusations, who by definition arent part of characteristics of a person, are part of characteristics of that person.
I believe I addressed this in round 1 during my introduction.
Names and labels, whether they're positive or negative, are still a part of your identity because they impact your experiences, which in turn molds who you become. Additionally, constantly being given a label or a certain name can impact how you see yourself and how you interact with the world.
I said that names and labels, whether they’re positive or negative, can impact our experiences and self-image. This includes false accusations, made up names, and insults.
Made up names aren’t all necessarily negative. Some of them can be a form of affection, like nicknames. For example, a mother might call their child “noodleface”, (for lack of a better word), a name that is exclusively for that child and something the child can identify with. As embarrassing as the name might sounds, the name represents the love that their parent has for them and hints at how close their bond is.
Now, I have attempted to explain my argument. I would like see Con explain their argument. Can you give examples proving that a label or name is not a part of our identity?
Con
#6
I believe I addressed this in round 1 during my introduction
No, you didnt.
Names and labels, whether they're positive or negative, are still a part of your identity because they impact your experiences, which in turn molds who you become. Additionally, constantly being given a label or a certain name can impact how you see yourself and how you interact with the world
So you assume that if name impacts your experience, it becomes part of your identity, and molds who you become.
False.
And then you assume that every given name means you will see yourself that way and change how you interact with the world.
False.
But none of that is relevant to the topic, since topic is not how you interact with the world, how you see yourself, or how you experience things.
The topic, to put it in the most simple way possible, is:
"The names and labels people give us are a part of our distinguishing character or personality"
If I call you a rapist, do you become a rapist?
Does "rapist" become part of your distinguishing character?
Character definition:
"Distinguishing mental and moral qualities".
Does "rapist" become part of your distinguishing mental and moral qualities?
Qualities definition:
"a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something"
Does "rapist" become part of your attribute or characteristics?
Does "rapist" become part of your personality?
Which part of your personality becomes rapist?
Which part of your character becomes rapist?
If none, then the topic which you are defending is incorrect.
If yes, then calling you a rapist means "rapist" is part of your attribute or characteristic or personality.
To explain it even better, then one of your attributes would be "rapist", or one of your characteristics would be "rapist", or part of your personality would be "rapist".
Is that the position you are defending?
That calling someone a rapist makes him a rapist?
And topic includes all names and labels, which means it includes all their definitions too.
Can you give examples proving that a label or name is not a part of our identity?
If I call someone a rapist, but the person is not a rapist, then how is "rapist" part of his identity?
By law of non-contradiction, person can either be a rapist or not be a rapist.
But you have to defend an absurd position that person includes "rapist" any time anyone calls that person rapist.
Obviously, person cannot include/contain "rapist" in its complete meaning without a part of him being rapist, without part of him committing rape.
You defend that some part of a person is "rapist" in its full meaning while no part of person has committed rape.
An absurd position.
If I call you a helicopter, which part of you becomes the helicopter?
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
I regret setting the time to only 12 hours. I realize that my arguments definitely needed more time than that.
"The names and labels people give us are a part of our identities"
If something is a part of us, why does it then have to be given to us when we already should have it?
Perhaps those names and labels were never a part of us, all those names and labels are all that the people had given us, nothing more.
Whether or not the resolution is true depends entirely on how one defines identity.