Instigator / Pro
42
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
18
3
Sources points
12
4
Spelling and grammar points
6
3
Conduct points
6
3

With 6 votes and 29 points ahead, the winner is ...

Sophocles
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
13
1424
rating
12
debates
20.83%
won
Description
~ 610 / 5,000

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).

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forefeit

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

full forfeit