The Instigator
F.Lawyer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nimbus328
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

All people are born without any talents.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Nimbus328
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 31524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

F.Lawyer

Pro

Nature or nurture?
I know it"s very debatable question among humanity and of course you may don"t agree with me. But I"ll try to prove my position. Everything comes after born. Nobody prescribes your destiny like this future man will have such talent and that man such talent. No! Nobody. So from my point of view, in general, people born in this world similarly like other people: without any talents, without any potential.
Everybody formulates yourself since their born. It means that already from your born everything around influence you. You formulate your character, your potentials to something, and your views to the world etc. For instance, our one of the greatest Kazakh writers is Abay Kunanbayev. His talent to writing influenced his grandmother " Zere and mother "Ulzhan. They just read to him every night different interesting books. Moreover they could read stories very interestingly. And it was the reason that Abay started interested in writing. Another example, one of the well-known and talented compositors " Ludwig van Beethoven. His father was compositor too. So Beethoven grew up among musical instrument and in the future becoming a great compositor influence his father. Even people do not born as healer or as a medium. They are becoming like that growing up during their life. The reason becoming a medium can be: apparent death, after kind of catastrophe or accident.
Finally, a lot of things formulate from the very beginning, including upbringing and surrounding. The childhood play more huge and important role in becoming talented and great.
Nimbus328

Con

My opponent takes the stance of Nurture over Nature.

I simply have to show that Nature gives homo sapiens an inborn advantage to suit their environment.

The classic example comes from Evolutionary Psychology[1]. This source in and of itself wins the debate for me. This is "An invaluable primer written by two of the founders of the field." This is cited by 306 scholarly articles on scholar.google.com

This source is very strong. This cannot be emphasized enough.

In summary of the source:

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.
Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.
Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry
Principle 4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.
Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.

A relevant snippet from Principle 2

For you, that pile of dung is "disgusting". For a female dung fly, looking for a good neighborhood and a nice house for raising her children, that pile of dung is a beautiful vision -- a mansion. (Seeing a pile of dung as a mansion -- that's what William James meant by making the natural seem strange).

The point is, environments do not, in and of themselves, specify what counts as "appropriate" behavior. In other words, you can't say "My environment made me do it!" and leave it at that. In principle, a computer or circuit could be designed to link any given stimulus in the environment to any kind of behavior. Which behavior a stimulus gives rise to is a function of the neural circuitry of the organism. This means that if you were a designer of brains, you could have engineered the human brain to respond in any way you wanted, to link any environmental input to any behavior -- you could have made a person who licks her chops and sets the table when she smells a nice fresh pile of dung.

All humans have the capability to realize that dung is inedible.



A relevant snippet from Principle 3

...our intuitions can deceive us. Our conscious experience of an activity as "easy" or "natural" can lead us to grossly underestimate the complexity of the circuits that make it possible. Doing what comes "naturally", effortlessly, or automatically is rarely simple from an engineering point of view. To find someone beautiful, to fall in love, to feel jealous -- all can seem as simple and automatic and effortless as opening your eyes and seeing. So simple that it seems like there is nothing much to explain. But these activities feel effortless only because there is a vast array of complex neural circuitry supporting and regulating them.

All humans have a strong sex drive



A relevant snippet from Principle 4

A basic engineering principle is that the same machine is rarely capable of solving two different problems equally well. We have both screw drivers and saws because each solves a particular problem better than the other. Just imagine trying to cut planks of wood with a screw driver or to turn screws with a saw.

...our minds consist of a large number of circuits that are functionally specialized. For example, we have some neural circuits whose design is specialized for vision. All they do is help you see. The design of other neural circuits is specialized for hearing. All they do is detect changes in air pressure, and extract information from it. They do not participate in vision, vomiting, vanity, vengeance, or anything else. Still other neural circuits are specialized for sexual attraction -- i.e., they govern what you find sexually arousing, what you regard as beautiful, who you'd like to date, and so on.

All humans have the ability to hear



A relevant snippet from Principle 5

Generation after generation, for 10 million years, natural selection slowly sculpted the human brain, favoring circuitry that was good at solving the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors -- problems like finding mates, hunting animals, gathering plant foods, negotiating with friends, defending ourselves against aggression, raising children, choosing a good habitat, and so on. Those whose circuits were better designed for solving these problems left more children, and we are descended from them.


All humans know to defend their children


It quickly becomes obvious that humans share inborn traits common to mammals. Compare the human with the dog and the cat.

[1] http://www.cep.ucsb.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
F.Lawyer

Pro

OMG your answer so long, complicated and force me to confuse. You are really plagiarist! Could not you write with your own words? Additionally, you should reject my arguments, explain me why they not correct or something else! After that you must write your own arguments! Or you cannot explain them?

Well you wrote something huge about human brain and abilities of our brain and etc. In what places of your arguments is said that people are born with their special and certain talents? Your response difficult to understand, I cannot find the connection between my position and yours. Ok, can you give at least one example from our life, from real person's experience? And please next time can you write with your own words and do it easier to understand!

Anyway I will still support my arguments till you will not reject them.
Nimbus328

Con

I read the entire 40 page article[1] last year, twice, and recommend anyone with a serious interest in the nature of man to do the same. An article cannot be refuted on its length. In fact, length would imply more thought into the position, thus more credibility.

I quoted the article because I thought it unlikely that my opponent would read it. This is proper, and has proven to be a correct assessment of my opponent.

It is odd that I am criticized for using the full 5000 words allowed in this debate. If my opponent wants 1000 word arguments, he should in the future restrict his debates to such a level of conversation.

***************************

My opponent is limiting his definition of "talent" to "learned skill" which is a circular argument. "I am correct because I am correct."

In reality, "talent" is aptitude. "A talent is a group of aptitudes useful for some activity, talents may refer to aptitudes themselves[2]"

Every human being is adept at defecating. Making love. Expressing hunger.

Modern technology prescribes particular structure for doing this: one must use the toilet for defecating. However, it is instinctual for a human being to release the feces in a place that is removed from the general living area. Look at the tribal people. Look at the cat. The perfect example.

Making love. The hips move in a primal manner during copulation. This is an inborn talent, aptitude, for placing sperm in the vagina in a manner that it remains. Note the fatigue of specifically the woman after intercourse. She does not get up to walk/run because she is tired. This ingrown talent for retaining the sperm allows maximum benefit for minimal effort in the act of mating.

Hunger. Every baby cries when hungry. This is not a taught skill: it is inborn.

[1] www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
F.Lawyer

Pro

Yea I see maybe I should not complain about the size! But if to be honest your answer really hard to me to understand, here is written so philosophy and is used many biological words. It would be better and more understandable if you paraphrase it or write using your words! I did not catch your point in your first answer to my challenge! I am not a native speaker and also it is one of my first debates! So sorry writing about the length!

However, I can still respond to your arguments: "Every human being is adept at defecating. Making love." And "Hunger. Every baby cries when hungry. This is not a taught skill: it is inborn."

Of course we all know how making love and of course baby cry when he wants to eat. We all know it and do it without learning how to do it! It is our human instinct. It is not a talent! Because all people can do it! Talent it is special ability of every person. Exactly this person can do it better than others. This is the meaning of talent!

So I want to give one more example about Tomas Edison. There is the one person who claim that he was the most well-known and great inventor due to his innate talent. But I can give another explanation: I have already read a lot about Tomas Edison and learned his biography. So, he was born like "problem child". In the Wikipedia says that Tomas in his childhood had problems with health: problem with hearing, scarlet disease and with education. So he was in school only 3 months. From the Wikipedia: "Edison recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother taught him at home. Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy"". It means her mother was for him like a motivation. His mother every time supported and believed him. Also when he had a free time during working like a seller at the station, he went to the library and read a lot, he wanted to read all of these books. Furthermore, his teachers in the school influenced him too. They said that Tomas will not achieve anything. And their words moved him to prove that he can everything. Sometimes it occurs with us. Let"s agree with me! Therefore I want to say that Tomas Edison"s surrounding influenced him to be the great inventor, especially his mother.
Nimbus328

Con

Pro stated: "Of course we all know how making love and of course baby cry when he wants to eat. We all know it and do it without learning how to do it! It is our human instinct."

Skills and talents are required for survival. My opponent has conceded the core of the debate. Namely, that all people have inborn skills and talents.

Edison built on the foundations of what came before. Language was a tremendous leap forward for humanity. Then there was writing. Without these two tools, we are reduced to the primal instincts.

These primal instincts are the inborn talents that are the core of the debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by hilton16 3 years ago
hilton16
F.Lawyer made me laugh on this one. complaining about the length of the debate and not understanding it. "Nimbus328 win this debate because Mr. F. Lawyer seems to be a cry baby. i'm just waiting for the voting period
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
Nimbus328
Good resource, thanks.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
For people interested in this subject I'd suggest reading Steven Pinker's books.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
F.LawyerNimbus328Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This really wasn't a debate. Pro's defense of the "blank slate" philosophy was completely unsupported other than complaining about Con's argument (which was not plagiarized, since he gave the link and made it clear he was quoting the passages) and giving one example of nurtured talent (Edison). This doesn't fulfill the BoP that "all people are born without any talents." Con gave examples of talent (which, since nobody decided to define for the context of the debate, I'm using the most accepted definition: natural aptitude or skill). I understand where Pro wanted this debate to go, and for future debates I recommend he define "talent" geared in that direction and word the resolution in a way where Con has at least some BoP, rather than just the BoR.