Instigator / Pro
Points: 49

Nurture is the dominant factor over Nature

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 7 votes the winner is ...
DynamicSquid
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,000
Contender / Con
Points: 7
Description
Nature - How you were born
Nurture - How you were raised
Are our physical and mental selves like this because we were born like this, or because we were raised like this?
Round 1
Published:
Hello Michael and thanks for accepting this debate. Let's get started...


A) OUTLINE

Round 1 - First argument
Round 2 - Second argument, and clash
Round 3 - Summarization, and clash

Arguments

1. What is Nature? - What are the limits of how nature affects us?
  • What exactly is nature?
  • Why it can't be the deciding factor
2. Real World Examples - How does our nurture affect us?
  • What exactly is nurture?
  • How does our environment affect us?

B) ARGUMENTS

What is Nature?What are the limits of how nature affects us?


I. What exactly is Nature?

According to Oxford, the definition of nature is:

the basic or inherent features of something
Or in this case, how you we born. Were you born a firefighter? Were you born a bully?
(An average person's physical and personality traits)

II. Why it can't be the deciding factor

When babies are born, they don't know what a firefighter is. They can't. They don't know anything about this world, until they are taught. An example of this would be your first language.


Thank you.
Published:
In the argument of nature vs. nurture, nature is what we're born with, (i.e., genetics).
Nurture is the upbringing and environment we're raised in. 

Pro used ambiguous pronouns such as "we," "us," and "ourselves" to describe the subjects of the nature vs. nurture debate. Pro didn't specify that the nature vs. nurture argument extended only to humans or that it was limited strictly to behavior, though that is the traditional bound of the debate.

Humans share 98.8% of DNA with chimps and bonobos. [1]
Humans share 70% of DNA with zebrafish. [2]
Humans share 60% of DNA with fruit flies. [3]

However, humans look very different from bonobos, vastly different from zebrafish, and fruit flies might as well have evolved on a different planet for all of the physical similarity they bear to homo sapiens


Round 2
Published:
Hello and let's get right into this...

A) CLASH

extended only to humans or that it was limited strictly to behavior
Talking about humans here. And reasonable "physical and personality traits". Like your job, hobbies, or weight. And yes, you're correct, I'm using the traditional bound of this debate.

humans look very different from bonobos, vastly different from zebrafish
Humans only please.

Also keep in mind that my opponents didn't respond to any of my arguments in my last speech.


B) ARGUMENTS

Real World ExamplesHow does our nurture affect us?


I. What exactly is Nurture?

According to Oxford, nurture is:

the process of caring for [...] the growth or development of someone ...
Basically referring to parents, friends, and alike.

II. How does our environment affect us?

In tons of ways. Bible:

He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed
Chaplain Ronnie Melancon:

Show me your friends and I'll show you your future
This is a proven fact.

Thank you.
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
In the debate, we have covered what nature is, and how it can't be the deciding factor. We have also talked about what nurture is, and how it is the deciding factor.

Keep in mind that my opponent has not yet refuted any of my claims.

My opponent has not provided a response in the last round, so I will leave it at that.

Thank you.
Forfeited
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I'd like to apologize for the forfeited rounds. My school blocks this site, and my job has no wifi at all. If we debate again in the future, I would be better able to participate if the debating period is 3 or more days.
Contender
#13
Added:
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason: FF
#12
Added:
--> @SupaDudz, @K_Michael, @DynamicSquid
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions)
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes (such as a concession or FF, but the voter mistakingly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************
#11
Added:
SupaDudz
2 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
I hate K's and the case was pretty much not great and FF is bad conduct
#10
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks! And yes, it was morse code. What you CP'd, I think.
#9
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
Your vote has been deleted as per your request. The previous RFD was in Morse Code (I think)...
"..-. --- .-. . ..-. .. -"
#8
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Oops
Dw though I flagged my vote for removal and will revote
#7
Added:
I hate K's and the case was pretty much not great and FF is bad conduct. just c and p ing it here so i can revote when it dets deleted
#6
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Thanks for pointing it out!
#5
Added:
--> @SupaDudz, @armoredcat, @PressF4Respect
Hey, I just wanted to point out, did you guys mix up Con and Pro?
Oh, and armoredcat, I can't read binary lol
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
"my opponents didn't respond to any of my arguments in my last speech."
"Round 1 - First argument
Round 2 - Second argument, and clash
Round 3 - Summarization, and clash"
My interpretation of this is that there is no direct response (clash) to the other's argument in the first round. It is only stating my own beliefs.
Contender
#3
Added:
Links 2 round:
https://blogs.webmd.com/relationships/20160928/4-ways-your-friends-shape-your-future
https://www.inc.com/david-cancel/what-5-people-closest-to-you-say-about-your-future.html
Instigator
#2
Added:
Links:
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392
https://www.medicinenet.com/nature_vs_nurture_theory_genes_or_environment/article.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Instigator
#1
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
RFD in Comments
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF ⠀
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
FF is bad conduct
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
..-. --- .-. . ..-. .. -
This is what Ragnar said my previous RFD was, so if it says anything inappropriate ;)
Lol jk
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Not the worst start to a K from con (even if the description indicated the subject matter of us, as in humans), but no follow through, instead he dropped out every round after the first (making it an FF).
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
01010010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110000 01101001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100110 01100110 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110000 01100101 01101111 01110000 01101100 01100101 00100000 01000110 01000110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110100 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01110110 01101001 01100100 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01110101 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00101110 00100000 01001100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01110011 01100101 01110010 01101001 01101111 01110101 01110011 01101100 01111001 00101100 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00111111 00001010 00001010 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101011 01101001 01100100 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00101110 00100000 01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100101 01100001 01110011 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101110 00100001
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.