The Instigator
Silk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Olivetree24
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Humans can't alter their dispositions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Olivetree24
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 41036
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Silk

Pro

Nature vs Nurture. 2012 Paradigm: Psychiatrists delve into our brains & physiologists map out our bodies & geneticists trace our DNA & the iron grip of heredity & as they
do so they discover how little control or responsibility, if any, we have over our actions but yet most continue to cling to this "free will" nonsense.
Olivetree24

Con

Firstly
Hello and welcome voters and my opponent Silk.
The Nurture side of the Nature vs. Nurture debate is mainly supported by Behavioral Psychology which studies the impact of socialization on our development of behavior as children. Three main aspects of Behavioral Psychology are Operant learning, Social learning theory and classical conditioning. Albert Bandura's social learning theory (1977) is based around behaviour learnt from ones environment by observing the behaviour of others. Bandura's main case study was the Bobo doll study. In his study he took a group of young children and split them into three groups. The first group he put into a room when a woman was violently hitting and bashing up a Bobo doll. The second group was made to watch a video of a woman doing the same thing and the last group was the control group. He found that the children; when exposed to a Bobo doll, the first and second groups were more violent towards the Bobo doll than the control group. This case study supports that childrens' behavior is in fact impacted upon by what they see and the people they interact with and thus proving that nurture does in fact overcome nature in the development of behaviors.
Debate Round No. 1
Silk

Pro

Hi..I am "asserting" that we are genetically disposed
to react to a particular stimulus. I further submit this
childs reactions were evolving (ancestors/genetics) umpteen
eons before the actual carnate child came into existence.
A childs of say plus or minus 5 years environmental encounters
are not going to "trump" these "umpteen" eons of genetic development.
Just what I mean to infer by that will soon become patently obvious.
An apple doesn't fall far from the tree. A human can, reluctantly on occasion,
be brought to admit & agree that it perhaps inherited the color of its eyes,
skin & physical shape from his family but he struggles with the concept that its
likes & dislikes, his attitudes & prejudices, his talents & or lack of them also are inherited.
There are no blank pages to be filled in as one goes on. "Destiny", the script was written & set
long before you were ever thought of of let alone even conceived! Nature is the guiding invisible
hand ..In other words as far as humans and all else are concerned Mother Nature deals the cards and all
one can do is play the hand they're dealt. The present day scientific paradigm favors Nature not nurture.
Olivetree24

Con

Hello once again
Firstly I must point out a few flaws in my opponents case; my opponent stated that, "Mother nature plays all the cards," when if mother nature truly controls everything that we do and say and even our destiny then what is the explanation of how different identical twins can end up being. Identical twins are exactly the same in the way of genetics and therefore look exactly the same, but often these people grow up to be completely different people. Through looking at the massive differences between these people who theoretically should act and say the Exact same thing we cannot deny the importance of Nurture in a child"s upbringing. An excellent example of two twins who were nurtured to be completely different is the case of David Reimer.
In 1965 the Canadian Reimer family got two new members, identical twins Brian and Bruce were born. Because of both of the twins having urinary difficulties they decided to get them circumcised. During the procedure the power cut out and the laser accidentally burnt off Baby Bruces penis. The family was distraught and they consulted many doctors but none had a solution. It was only one night on telly that they were given hope again, a psychologist Dr. John Money claimed that he could raise a baby boy to think that he was a girl. Pamela Reimer agreed to meet him and they were soon hooked on the idea. Twins Bruce and Brian were the perfect case as Dr. Money could use Brian as the constant variable. So they began and with regular consults with Dr. money baby Bruce(Brenda) grew up a happy young girl. It was only at age 13 that it was finally revealed to Brenda (later to be known as David Reimer) that he was in fact a boy. Despite the case not being completely successful in the end, we cannot deny that the case was relatively successful. It was only because of the emotional distress that Brenda went through while in consult with his psychologist (Dr Money) as he tried to convince him further that he was girl even presenting options like a vagina reconstruction. We cannot overlook how important nurture is in the upbringing of children and David Reimers case proves that nurture can in fact overcome nature even in an area as important as the gender of a person.
Debate Round No. 2
Silk

Pro

Unfortunately Olivers argument is but a classical "strawdog".. A man Skinner had a similar
"strawdog" some years back and it has it has since been proven patently false. What happened
was that the Nurture Concept was completely debunked. Twins may be physically similar but any
other "similiarity" ends there. It is now accepted [as did eventually Einstein who was a staunch determinist]
that we have no free will and life is for all intense & purposes totally deterministic. Destiny is the order of the day
read it and weep.. The "Destiny" theory is empirical! Just as surely as the physical laws (speed of light/gravity et al)
are set so too is EVERYTHING ELSE. It is this "dislike/fear" of helplessness that urges perhaps otherwise logical
people like Oliver to this "wishful thinking" that perhaps us humans have some say in the matter. We are "spectators"
that's all.. we can observe lifes machinations but we are pretty much helpless to influence things... the goings on.
The woof & warp of life goings on oblivious to our wishes. It is a slightly arresting notion that if
you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time,you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of
which had ever been alive but all of which had once been you. When all is said and done it is but human ego that is the basis of the "Oliver mind set".. the facts don't support it.. The Oliver mind set is what is at the heart of religion.
Olivetree24

Con

Hi
I must firstly point out that there is no proof of there being the higher force that we like to call destiny. There are so many choices in our life that you can"t possibly believe that each person has a destiny, that each person already has their future laid out for them before they are even born. Also, in what way are we "spectators" of our own lives, we make the decisions, if we mess up we only have ourselves to blame. We choose our own past, present and future. We are most certainly the most important person in our own lives and no one else controls what happens in our lives. I must also point out that the statement that my opponent made about Skinner"s "straw dog" is in fact incorrect. B.F Skinner was a behavioral psychologist who performed experiments in the area coined operant learning. Most famously he conducted experiments like Thorndike"s except using a mouse. He placed the mouse in a box he called the Skinners box where the mouse was to perform several tasks that it was conditioned to do using negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement , positive punishment and negative punishment. These experiments were proof of the extents of the effects of negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement , positive punishment and negative punishment; and strong evidence for how we can condition new behaviors into animals and humans; strong evidence for the Nurture side of the debate. In no way were his findings incorrect and to this present day his findings are still extremely relevant. Lastly I would like to point out that in debating you are not meant to refer to your opponent by their real name.
By the way my name is not Oliver and neither am I a boy"
Debate Round No. 3
Silk

Pro

Silk forfeited this round.
Olivetree24

Con

Thankyou for that compelling argument... Once again I raise my point that nurture is in fact solely impacting upon the building of a humans character. Many behavioural scientists like Skinner, Thorndike and Bandura have time and time again proved the massive impact of nurture on the upbringing of an individual. Also case studies like that of david reimer and the countless twin seperation studies have proved just how important nurture truly is.
Debate Round No. 4
Silk

Pro

Silk forfeited this round.
Olivetree24

Con

Olivetree24 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Silk 3 years ago
Silk
Wow! the penny finally dropped.. Yes I'm saying "Nature"pulls all the strings.
I suppose others disagree and submit Nurture is responsible while the play it
safe person will put forth 'they both' form the human.
Posted by Olivetree24 3 years ago
Olivetree24
So you are debating for Nature in the Nature vs. Nurture debate
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
SilkOlivetree24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Default. Interesting debate though. Wish it had been completed....