The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

People are born without any talents.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,566 times Debate No: 31644
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




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.


1. "Everything comes after born"
Before debating on whether or not people are born with talents, we must know the definition of the word "talent". In Oxford English Dictionary, talent is defined as a natural ability to do something well. Cambridge Dictionary said talent is a natural ability to be good at something, especially without being taught. As you know, these two are two of the most trusted dictionaries, and you can find the same definition in all the other. Talent is natural, without being taught. Talent is in the genes. I think you have a confusion between "talent" and "succeed". Yes, succeed is dependent on both genetic and environmental factors. But "talent" is only about genetic.

2. "in general, people born in this world similarly like other people: without any talents, without any potential." "already from your born everything around influence you." But how that explain why Thomas Edison, who had been kicked out of school and couldn't finish primary school, who has banned to read books by his father can became the greatest inventor in the world history? What made him become an inventor is not the external effects, it is his natural gift (smart and have strong will). If talent is come from the influence of other people, Thomas Edison could never become an inventor.

3. As I have proved in the first paragraph, talent is natural, without being taught. It is in the genes. You can't transfer it to another person. You can train one person's talent to make him/her become better but you can't give talent to a person who doesn't have it. For example, if you give a sprinter who is 145cm tall with short legs, wide hips and large upper bodies the better training condition, he still can't never beat the 187cm tall-sprinter who has long legs, narrow hips and small upper bodies.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes I see the definition of "talent". It is just definition that people can understand what does this word mean. Do you think that the person (who wrote this dictionary) before writing the definition of "talent" did he conduct the researches on human, determine it is natural or come from influencing a lot of things around us? Do you think so? I cannot believe to this definition. There are people who can support me that talent does not come from nature.

About Tomas Edison. I have already read a lot about him 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.

Of course we cannot learn somebody to this or that talents. It comes from (as I already said) influencing all thing around us! I think all of us have a talent. I do not say from the nature. Just". the brain all of us is divided humanitarian and technical skills. And which of it we will develop in our life experience and further we go by this way. We are developing, learning and so forth. Anyway to find our talent to something we should learn and work harder. Well can you say me one person who born with talent and immediately built the home or play the violin or cured somebody?


First of all, if you think that it's only need one person (in your argument, you said "the person" and "he") to write a dictionary which has descriptions for approximately 600,000 words (the Oxford English Dictionary is the world's most comprehensive single-language print dictionary according to the Guinness Book of World Records.), then you are wrong. And yes, of course, they did the research (indirect research, not direct) when they write the definition. They sent thousand of letters to the leading experts and professors, read thousands of research and scientific articles.
From your argument, I see you have read Wikipedia to learn about Thomas Edison. You said you read a lot about him but you didn't even learn how to write his name. It's Thomas not Tomas, and you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. By the ways, should we choose to trust in Wikipedia - a free content encyclopedia (which means everyone can log on and change the content) rather than Oxford and Cambridge?

Secondarily, you said talent is the result of the affect of the environment around us. And we also know that same affect lead to the same result. That means if people grow in the same or similar environment, they're gonna have the same or similar talent. That also means if you give a person the environment that support his/her to has a talent, his/her will "learn" that talent. But you also said "of course we cannot learn somebody to this or that talents". What is that? You have the same environment and talent is the result of the environment affect, but you still grow up with different talents. If it not the environment - the nurture, then what makes the different? Nothing but the nature.

Thirdly, as I said before, you have a confusion between "talent" and "succeed" or "achievement". The example you gave: built a house, cure somebody... is the achievement. Talent is the nature ability that help people do it more effectively (the ability to feel the rhythms, sense of space, location and structure, high IQ, good memory... which are in our gene). People are born with talents. But it needs not only talent but other factors to become succeed, to make a achievement like built the house, play the violin...
Debate Round No. 2


I believe that mostly people are born with good memory, with quickly understanding skills. For example, you know how children since borning faster can learn any language, remember evething etc. But it is not a talent! It is ability of everyody! Talent it is when one person do someting better than others!Then who can keep these abilities depend from person!

From these follow that mostly people are born with abilities in order to create their talents!


First, we do know that the meaning of every adjective is relatively. When everyone in the word can do the same thing, you are only "good" at it if you do it better. It has to be better than the normal standard. For example, when the average GPA of high school students in your country is 2.5/4, if you have the GPA of 2.5 or 2.6 then you are normal, nothing special, you are only called "good" if you have the GPA of 2.9 or 3.0. Another example, when the average height of men in your country is 1,7m, then you must be 1,8m to be called "tall". By that, "good memory" I mean have the better ability to remember thing than the normal standard. Your last argument did nothing but pointing out a different way of understand the word "good".
Second, I can see that you are changing your idea by saying "mostly people are born with abilities in order to create their talents!", which is OBVIOUSLY opposite of your first ideas "Everything comes after born." and "People are born without any talents." It means you are agree with me that "People are born WITH talents", isn't it?!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar clearly go to the Con. Con was also right when he said that Oxford and Cambridge are better than Wikipedia. Con won the arguments because pro did end up contradicting himself and did not make much sense sometimes.