Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)
Debate Rounds (5)
I am EXTREMELY sure that everything I am and have been is due to what my environment, society and friends turned me into. Although a lot of of what I am is determined biologically, I believe that my environment altered me mentally (depending on food I ate, how much water I consumed, abuse as a child, bullying, skin colour in relation to the skin colour of those in the environment I grew up in) I think that almost all nature factors are merely affecting one's personality only because the environment they grew up in enabled this reaction to occur.
I am almost 100% sure that if I hadn't lived my exact life the way I did, I would have grown to be totally different person, perhaps axe murderer, rapist, perhaps member of Taliban, Osama Bin Laden's Right hand man or if all my genetics (other than the XY chromosome) were kept in tact I think I'd also have been a willing sex slave or an unwilling rape victim, it all depends on the environment I grew up in. Also I think that if I had been a girl and lived my exact life I'd merely have become a tomboy lesbian (perhaps in the closet though) so I honestly believe in nurture vs nature.
First, I would define this: "The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits." 
Second, nature also does play some role in mood.
"When discussing the significant role of genetic heritability in relation to one's level of happiness, it has been found that from 44% to 52% of the variance in one's well-being is associated with genetic variation. Based on the retest of smaller samples of twins studies after 4,5, and 10 years, it is estimated that the heritability of the genetic stable component of subjective well-being approaches 80% ." 
Plus, nature also plays a role in IQ.
"Adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6". 
Education is an example of nurture. It is very effective in allowing people to learn knowledge.
So, nature and nurture both play an equal role, both mentally and physically.
WAIT A SECOND
The resolution clearly states nurture versus nature, you have to be in favour of nature not simply an advocate of equality! this is why I said equally shared BOP, I never in anyway stated that this meant you had BOP to prove the equal significance of both, instead if meant you equally have to prove nature's significance as I have to prove nurture's.
If my opponent wishes to continue advocating equality I think he should definitely lose the conduct vote.
Now I shall write an 'essay' styled debate (I've notice the 'bullet point+explanation style' of debating is most popular on DDO but I personally think an essay style is far more relevant to a nature and nurture conflict as all contentions are interlinked).
I am a relatively rational person (or so I like to think) I love music, hate sports am neither religious nor atheist (I am a devout agnostic, although I have inclinations to render fate as making more sense than chaos theory) I am heterosexually attracted to females, with a preference for those of the South American race (often termed 'Latino') and my favourite subject to study is philosophy, shortly followed by psychology and I hate bullies a lot. My political outlook is largely liberal, however I would like a huge revolt and oppression to oppression itself for I have a rather hypocritical ideal that if we oppress the oppressors, true peace and freedom will eventually come. I am largely described as a weird, funny, witty and clumsy individual and I myself see myself as a slow but logical person whose talent is rather underappreciated under the rigid and oppressive education system currently in place (although admittedly far less oppressive than previous ones) for I believe my true talent lies in original thinking in the field of philosophy (which unfortunately isn't taught until university for almost all schools I know of, and the one which I attend).
So why did I just blab about a lot of what makes me who I am? Why did I reveal random parts of my personal views and a little of my personality? Was it simply to bore you and enlarge my ego with knowing that you envy me (when you probably laugh at how arrogant I appear)? The reason is that I want to now explain why every single attribute I just mentioned is due, significantly (and in some cases solely) on combinations of environmental factors and others who I've grown up knowing and who treated me in whatever way they did at whatever stage in my development as a person (namely childhood and adolescence) I shall then briefly explain why even Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein are not born evil nor terrorists, but simply were inevitably forced to become so by whatever experiences they had in life, and whatever reactions they gave at the time, which ironically are also due to past environmental factors causing their reaction to be so in the first place.
My environment has shaped me, I have no doubt about that. I grew up a very international life, spending two years in USA, four in UAE, one in Kenya and the rest in UK. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had grown up in the same house all my life I would most certainly have a very blinkered view on the world, if not on every aspect of opinionation. I could easily have been raised by an extremist family (of any religion) and become a fundamentalist of that religion, listen to no music (as some Muslims believe it's satanic), eat no meat or fish, eat no pork, fast for Ramadan and eat only Halal meat... you get the idea. I'm also quite sure if my parents had been very strict on me as a toddler (as in slap me every time I did a thing 'unholy' and things like that) and had brainwashed me from a very early age, my resistance to other belief systems would be extremely high, this is also hugely relevant as to why atheists don't understand the religious and vice versa, atheists were raised by parents who valued subjects such as mathematics, science (including all subgenres of it), philosophy and geography over all other subjects and never raised their children to think in one way (or merely raised them to think like an atheist, this is also possible). On the other hand, heavily religious parents raise their child to believe in a religion (which is set to dominate any scientific or mathematical reasoning whatsoever, and if the science or maths causes confusion, the religious outlok should be the one to take) and hence lead you to believe in this.
My point is also related sexually. It is commonly believed, in this day and age, that sexuality is something you are born with, but I am going to be anti-norm in saying that it's not. It is not something you are born with, but it is also not a choice and this is where both the religious and anti-theists go wrong. A baby is asexual, it has no sexual preference. A human baby growing amongst wolves would naturally become sexually attracte to wolves, the sexual drive they had would relate to the one of their peers and/or idols (hence children often imitate others, if you swear they swear, if you like girls, they like girls unless you immediately tell them it's wrong or 'incorrect' to think or act this way). If you told the 2 year old me that rape is correct and consensual sex is boring and dull, I would probably grow to believe this espeically if I respected you as an idol or a parent. Despite children's natural rebelliousness, they actually value the words of their guardians over any of their peers (this almost completely turns the other way in adolescence, which is when environment is VERY influential on how you turn otu as an adult) this is psychologically valid and is very obvious when you see a child acting out or repeating exactly the same things in the same way as their parents.
If I then entered my pre-teen years with violent idols, with 18 year olds who beat me up and bullied me, I wold naturally grow to bully preteens at age 18 also (unless I moved to a society where this was regarded immoral and disgusting to do, although secretly I'd hate the injustice that I was abused at 12 and the new generation of 12 year olds I am with I am unable to abuse at the same age as my abusers). It is a well known fact that all large scale criminals (with only one or two exceptions per million) had abusive or rough upbringings. When I speak of large-scale criminals I am referring to ones who do crimes such as serial murder, serial robberies, grand thefts, assination work(although in some states this becomes legal depending on who you are assinating for, for example the CIA assassin would be seen as legal whilst the Mafia's assassin would not).
If I grew up amongst black people, which I didn't, I probably would find black girls hotter than Latinos. However I grew up with a very exotic set of family and friends, I grew up with a Sri Lankan father and a Danish mother so I guess I found an intermediate skin tone and stuff. Besides, I've grow up in a world where Latinos are reportedly the hottest race.
Now to the arguments
"People's mind and opinion are shaped by their environment and who they grew up with, etc." (very brief summery)
Well, let's see if that is always the case. First, studies have shown that the IQ of siblings are somewhat similar.
"Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6."
"My point is also related sexually. It is commonly believed, in this day and age, that sexuality is something you are born with, but I say it is not."
First, the definition is "The ways in which people experience and express themselves as sexual beings; the awareness of themselves as males or females; the capacity they have for erotic experiences and responses. "
So, the knowing of what gender you are isn't born with you? The way you can express you have genders isn't born with you? I doubt it.
The genetic influence to alcoholism has been studied since the 1970s, when twin studies first revealed this link. In April of this year, a team led by Susan Bergeson at the University of Texas at Austin found 20 gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking.
Sexuality is not gender. You are being stupid with that rebuttal., I know you are born with a gender but I think your sexuality is not inherited, I think you gain it as you grow, so I neither hold the view of it being born with you nor the religious view of it being a choice. I think it is your childhood experiences of male and female humans that shapes your sexuality, if you find females to be more appealing, you will be attracted to females, if you grow up with very appealing males and barely see attractive females I am pretty sure you'd grow to be gay. Additionally, as I said in the last round, if you grew up amongst wolves, you'd be sexually attracted to wolves, humans would seem like an alien species to you since you consider yourself to have the sexuality of a wolf due to your environment (nurture versus nature).
Sexuality: a person’s sexual orientation or preference.
Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. Additionally, exposure to omega 3,6 and 9 (all present in fish) largely affect IQ. This is ironically why even in poor regions of India, because so much of India eats fish in its curries, as do the Japanese, these countries generally produce individuals with jobs requiring high IQ (such as doctors, engineers and computer technicians). Environment is far more influential than genetics on IQ. The reasoning behind adopted babies having different IQ to each other is also relatively simple to explain. Two children brought up in the same household would still have had to have different in childhood. If one child befriended a smart child at school (smart for reasons of their upbringing) they would naturally compete to become smart, if the other grew up befriending less intelligent friends they would possibly dumb down to fit in. This is a common psychological trick of conformity. You will almost always adapt your IQ to fit that of your friends in the area in which you grew up. It isn't about genetics, it's about the urge to relate to them. If you grow up befriending the group of kids who are raised by rich 'upper class' parents then you will constantly debate as children and understand the concepts of economic success and why grades matter, thus causing you to have an in-built urge to study. As for the other sibling, they probably had a natural urge to befriend other types of people (yes this would be genetic) but apart form the natural tendency to befriend a type of people, they would have then adapted their IQ to that group of friends, often siblings don't like to befriend the same types of friends for the simple reason of competitiveness and rivalry. So if the older sibling befriended nerds, the younger child would hate to for simple rivalry. As for why the full siblings had similar IQ this is because they most likely had the natural urge to befriend the same type of people, but in the end that is not true for all siblings, not all biological siblings have same IQ, neither do all adoptive ones have differing IQ there are too many variables to draw conclusions from this.
The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol.
First, I'll make something clear:
An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence.
Knowledge:acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 
And another source also confirms this (although it does say that nurture also has a role in knowledge, but the IQ, is largely from nature and separate from knowledge.)
"And in fact, researchers have discovered that parents with high IQ"s tend to have children with high IQ"s, while parents with low IQ"s tend to have children with low IQ"s."
"The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol."
Well, although the father may drink in front of his son/daughter, you still do not have proof that the child will copy that behavior. You need a source, at least, because baseless claims aren't really convincing.
Plus, there are many other things that nature does do to behavior and your body, not just alcohol!
"Different versions of the gene CYP2A6 dictate the number of cigarettes a person smokes. Those with one version of the gene metabolize nicotine, and thus, need to light up more often.
Some 80 percent of a person"s risk of developing Alzheimer"s disease is genetic.
Sprinters are more likely than endurance runners to display a certain gene variant that is thought to cause the skeletal muscles to contract more powerfully at high speeds.
The genetic influence to alcoholism has been studied since the 1970s, when twin studies first revealed this link. In April of this year, a team led by Susan Bergeson at the University of Texas at Austin found 20 gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking." 
So, with these, let's count it up. Nurture:Knowledge
Nature:Addictions (e.g. alcohol, smoking) ,IQ , diseases.
High IQ comes from being brought up, as a baby and toddler, in an environment (such as a nursery, kindergarten or intelligent parent's home) that enables one to be far more challenged intellectually than the average baby.
The evidence for straight edge kids was that they were a group of punks who all grew up in a time of drugs, punks and alcoholics (ironically straight edge groups ended up being drug-free punks who were just as violent). I hate to be straight edge because some drugs can be nice hahaha.
Yes. THere is no need to dwell on this debate. It is nurture.
Maybe you can post a study that proves this?
"The evidence for straight edge kids was that they were a group of punks who all grew up in a time of drugs, punks and alcoholics (ironically straight edge groups ended up being drug-free punks who were just as violent). I hate to be straight edge because some drugs can be nice hahaha."
Drugs: "Pharmacology . a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being."
Can you please clarify if you mean illegal drugs or medicine?
"Yes. THere is no need to dwell on this debate. It is nurture."
Dwell:to live or stay as a permanent resident; reside. 
You cannot live in a debate.
Whatever, I can't be bothered.
Vote pro if you want.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: pRO CONDECED
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.