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?
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.