Intelligence: Nature vs Nurture
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 29 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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).
Full forfeit.
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.
Full forfeit
Full forefeit
full forfeit
Screw you.
It's BS. I made that first comment right before I went to bed, and his account said:" last online 5 hours ago". During my lunch break, I checked and got no reply. His account said "last active 2 hours ago". He continued to do this.
I hope you do have a rematch. Shame he's not responding.
Answer me please.
When citing, can you post links in the future? This way, we can click to the studies.
I apologize for not being here, but real life stuff got in the way of me posting an argument. I would like to agree on a tie for this debate and then debate you later on the same topic in a new debate.
Hey, can we agree to tie on this debate, and then do another debate on the same topic later?
Real life stuff got in the way here.