Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 29 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Intelligence: General cognitive ability as measured by an IQ test such as Raven's progressive matrices.
Nurture: upbringing, education, and environment, contrasted with inborn characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nurture)
Nature: Inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nature).
Thank you for accepting/reading the debate and please ensure that you're using academic sources for fact-checking purposes (please also consider this while voting).
Pro made an opening argument. Full forfeit by Con, although Con did ask for a rematch in the comments and never received a response from Pro.
This sort of 'I have a study and only I can see it' mentality of non-URL source-users irritates me immensely. So what if your source is run by anti-socialist pay-to-see agenda researchers? That's your problem not ours. No source vote to Pro for literally only using this unclickable abstract-only-if-you-do-not-pay mentality research usage as sources. If money is their primary motive and not just a bonus/means to an an end then they are corrupt researchers.
I also will note that Pro had very assumptive arguments about what intelligence is or isn't. There's four types of intelligence, only one is heavily IQ and only two are heavily nature-based. I won't go into my four-type-theory of intelligence here but those who know me know about it or are free to PM me about it.
I care very little about forfeiting because it was Pro who had the bad conduct and not Con if you look at the Comments-section. Pro didn't even have the guts to admit he was ruthless to Con, he just silence-manoeuvred it.
I don't have Pro but this was not his best piece at all. FF so automatically Pro gets the arguments.