The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

human gene or human environment determines human quality

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 18455
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

xxx200

Pro

there are 2 factors which determine human quality. what is human quality? human quality is capability of invention or creative capability and it also includes talking, walking, look like a human.why these are called human quality? because only human being behaves like this in this world.

now there 2 factors that determine human quality. one is gene and another is environment.now there was a debate as to who will determine human quality? the communist/socialist people says environment will determine human quality and others say gene is determinant of human quality. i also say that gene is the determinant factor of human quality after considering a short experiment:

a chimp is put under human environment. it was taught human behavior which it could easily copycat but it has not gained any human quality i.e. it still remain a chimp and not turned into a human.

on the other hand: a human child was kept with a chimp family. he used to play with chimps but he will not gain any chimp quality i.e. he did not look like chimp, he has creative faculty intact, he walk and talk like human etc.

the result can be presented in the form of a table:

Case

gene

environment

quality

Human

Human

Chimp

Human

Chimp

Chimp

Human

chimp





now friends can you see the relation between gene and quality? see even if the environment is chimp the human quality is intact and even if the environ is human chimp quality is intact. so there is no relation between environment and quality. but see if the gene is human then quality is human but if the gene is chimp the quality is chimp. there is a clear relation between gene and quality.

this experiment can still be done today with minimum cost/ tiny cost. but the result is awsome.
Marauder

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

I will be taking the Con side which I guess Pro has made clear belongs to defending that it is environment that determines human quality over our genes determining it.
For some ignorant reason, Pro has decided to start out by labeling my side the communist socialist side. I can not imagine how Pro concludes that, but for the record in this debate it is not being defended by a communist or a socialist. I am a Capitalist and very conservative. This may seem like a pointless thing to waist character space on but I just want to set the tone for this debate that the logic of our environments role on who we are (our quality) is inescapable to all with any foundation for there beliefs.

I want to make it clear that its understood why pro is not just wrong but that its important not to take his conclusion seriously. If we accepted that our environment does not affect our quality, or who we are or become, but that its just in the genes, what would this imply about the point to raising your children? After all why worry about them, whatever they will grow up into has already been determined by the DNA. if you wanted to change them for the better you would have to introduce new DNA into them (not possible yet in practice).
Since that cannot be done, then there is no helping what will happen to your child. You cant raise them to respect the law officers, you just have to hope that's in there genes. you cant get them to be well educated by filling there lives with books as they grow up, they wont learn to exercise by seeing you exercise, and my list could go on and on...

The truth is your children are very affected by what you do and teach as they grow up. The things you often show value in they will value too as they grow up http://home.earthlink.net... http://jurino.com... How you raise them matters. If you make an open habit of swearing around them, they will end up swearing early on in life cause they learned from you it must be okay, if your not responsible with your money they will not be responsible with there money, If you start showing it matters to you and show you expect it of them they will treat being responsible with there money as something that matters http://www.daveramsey.com...

If you will all now turn your attention to the video of the Justin Moore song, go ahead and play it and listen to the lyrics. is there any line in that song you find blatantly false? how about just a little off? There's really nothing at all that strikes me as too out there to say in the lyrics. An example I will pull from it "I've been kicked in the face by a hours, cause I ran up too fast behind him..." In this part of the song the singer describes how he's learned to not run up real fast behind hours. in a very painful fashion. that's environment he is describing that gave him this cautious quality. not his DNA. not his genes. Through the song he describes all the events of his life that made him "..a little bit harder and a whole lot smarter". All said events are descriptions of what would have to be called environmental factors in this debate over the option of calling them gene factors.

Now to address the monkey test....
This test makes no noteworthy point for this debate resolution because it of very absurd, not practical degree's. Everything I have refereed to to make my case about environment being the determining factor to human quality, to forming who we are as we grow up from child to adult, has been of practical practice ones that we all know so well.

to show you how absurd the test is lets make the same test but to make my case for environment factors.
Take one human and inject monkey blood into his veins, or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from the monkey directly into the mans privates.
results should show the man will die.
now take one monkey and put human blood in its veins or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from human directly to this monkeys privates.
same result.
In nether of these cases will the species change species.
Therefore we can see there quality have nothing to do with DNA..... do you see how silly this monkey test is now?

Also interesting to note, dating a Irish woman will not give me red hair. But why should we care about that in this debate? My opponent started his opening case by defining 'quality' as including our creativity, our intellect, our ability to invent. But his case about the monkey test seems to show he's thinking of 'quality' as something of our physical features.

Your genes will determine if you have red hair, they will determine how tall you are and they may even determine how easily the sun will burn your skin. some peoples genes determine if they need to have sugar more often than most in there diet or not at all. Some peoples genes determines how prone they are to a heart attack. But the full depth of who we are, of our 'quality' that is determined after we are born, by the environment we grow up in. If grow up in the environment of France I will grow up speaking french. But I was in fact born and grew up in America, and I learned English. I grew up in the south and learned to speak that English with a particular dialect.

That is all for this round.
I await my opponents response
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

For some ignorant reason, Pro has decided to start out by labeling my side the communist socialist side. I can not imagine how Pro concludes that, but for the record in this debate it is not being defended by a communist or a socialist. I am a Capitalist and very conservative. This may seem like a pointless thing to waist character space on but I just want to set the tone for this debate that the logic of our environments role on who we are (our quality) is inescapable to all with any foundation for there beliefs.

i label the con side communist socialist because communist people believe that environment affects human quality. it is by no means a waist of character space.

I want to make it clear that its understood why pro is not just wrong but that its important not to take his conclusion seriously. If we accepted that our environment does not affect our quality, or who we are or become, but that its just in the genes, what would this imply about the point to raising your children? After all why worry about them, whatever they will grow up into has already been determined by the DNA. if you wanted to change them for the better you would have to introduce new DNA into them (not possible yet in practice).
Since that cannot be done, then there is no helping what will happen to your child. You cant raise them to respect the law officers, you just have to hope that's in there genes. you cant get them to be well educated by filling there lives with books as they grow up, they wont learn to exercise by seeing you exercise, and my list could go on and on...

why should we raise our kids and why should we worry about our kids are questions to ourselves. some parents worry, some don't, some just left their kids. i think this depends on our belief systems. even if we teach our kids to respect law officer, did they do that ? didn't they have a problem with law officers?

The truth is your children are very affected by what you do and teach as they grow up. The things you often show value in they will value too as they grow up http://home.earthlink.net...... http://jurino.com...... How you raise them matters. If you make an open habit of swearing around them, they will end up swearing early on in life cause they learned from you it must be okay, if your not responsible with your money they will not be responsible with there money, If you start showing it matters to you and show you expect it of them they will treat being responsible with there money as something that matters http://www.daveramsey.com......

now come to the value system. did all our kids of human race take up the values given by their parents ? i have heard cases where children of orthodox christian parents turned into atheist or member of other religions. i am not giving any reference supporting this argument because you can find this kind of cases in your own locality as well as in the world at large. so the conclusion is what we teach, our kids will not accept.

If you will all now turn your attention to the video of the Justin Moore song, go ahead and play it and listen to the lyrics. is there any line in that song you find blatantly false? how about just a little off? There's really nothing at all that strikes me as too out there to say in the lyrics. An example I will pull from it "I've been kicked in the face by a hours, cause I ran up too fast behind him..." In this part of the song the singer describes how he's learned to not run up real fast behind hours. in a very painful fashion. that's environment he is describing that gave him this cautious quality. not his DNA. not his genes. Through the song he describes all the events of his life that made him "..a little bit harder and a whole lot smarter". All said events are descriptions of what would have to be called environmental factors in this debate over the option of calling them gene factors.

now the song. it is a song. it is not reality. it is created by somebody out of his/her imagination.now come to the point of learning of the singer. she learned from what we call experience and not from environment.i don't think that such an imaginary thing could be an evidence in any debate.

Now to address the monkey test....
This test makes no noteworthy point for this debate resolution because it of very absurd, not practical degree's. Everything I have refereed to to make my case about environment being the determining factor to human quality, to forming who we are as we grow up from child to adult, has been of practical practice ones that we all know so well.

to show you how absurd the test is lets make the same test but to make my case for environment factors.
Take one human and inject monkey blood into his veins, or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from the monkey directly into the mans privates.
results should show the man will die.
now take one monkey and put human blood in its veins or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from human directly to this monkeys privates.
same result.
In nether of these cases will the species change species.
Therefore we can see there quality have nothing to do with DNA..... do you see how silly this monkey test is now?

now come to the monkey test. how do you know it is very absurd? have you performed that test ? did your pets acquire some human quality? did it talk or walk like a human being?

now the test you have described is obviously absurd one. you ask me to inject monkey or human blood, but i am talking about human gene. gene is not blood and vice versa. if you inject human blood into monkey or vice versa, both human and monkey may die.but if you inject genes, the result cannot be predicted because such test has not been carried out yet.moreover, i have never mentioned gene transfusion or blood transfusion in my test.

Also interesting to note, dating a Irish woman will not give me red hair. But why should we care about that in this debate? My opponent started his opening case by defining 'quality' as including our creativity, our intellect, our ability to invent. But his case about the monkey test seems to show he's thinking of 'quality' as something of our physical features.

my defination of quality includes both crative ability and talking, walking or behaving like human.i have never said quality includes physical feature. from where my opponent brings physical feature in the defination of quality, i don't know.

dating an irish woman will not change your hair color again proves that environment has no effect over human physical feature.in fact environment has no effect over human quality and physical feature.

Your genes will determine if you have red hair, they will determine how tall you are and they may even determine how easily the sun will burn your skin. some peoples genes determine if they need to have sugar more often than most in there diet or not at all. Some peoples genes determines how prone they are to a heart attack. But the full depth of who we are, of our 'quality' that is determined after we are born, by the environment we grow up in. If grow up in the environment of France I will grow up speaking french. But I was in fact born and grew up in America, and I learned English. I grew up in the south and learned to speak that English with a particular dialect.


if you grow up in france, you no doubt speak french but if you grow up in the rain forest of congo in africa amongst other animals, will you behave like them ? will you walk in 4 legs, drink with your toung, roar like them, or hunt like them ?
Marauder

Con

I apologies for any miscommunication caused by my spelling and grammar errors. My mistakes are much more visible to me when re-reading my case quoted in large bold letters. I was not accusing you Pro of wasting character space, I was defending that I was not wasting it with pointing out I am not communist.
But since you bring it up, it is waist of your character space. It does not serve to contribute to your case for your resolution (human genes determine human quality) It almost seems like your trying to imply a argument though by bothering to bring it up that would fail do to the fallacy of it being an ad-homine. saying "environment does not determine quality because communist think it does" is akin in logic to saying "the Nazi's were evil so Germans are evil too"

If you do not understand why we should raise our children then I cannot help you with the given time I have this debate. I started out with bringing up raising children because for our audience this might show the practical application our opposing schools of thought have on common aspects of there lives like a parents common concern for the future of there child.
It is not necessary that you comprehend a "why bother" to choosing to raise your own kid though. Just understand there are those out there that do; and consider their practicing that art a wealth of data gathered from that timeless experiment, raising your kid from boy to man/ girl to woman in a fashion you would like that makes you proud.
For those that have bothered to raise there kids, they have learned and shown this art is done through what must be categorized as environmental not genetic factors. Parents that practice giving a lot consistently find there children learn to give like its important to do so. Children that grow up in houses where there parents are always afraid of the police rather then respectful of the police are more prone to freak out when they pass a cop car even though they were not speeding. My own parents displayed nothing but absolute respect of those with a badge, and that environment rooted in me so much that even when I have had the least control due to anger issues and my only desire was to lash out at all when a officer comes I cannot lash out at him.

You bring up that 'some kids get different values than there parents.' This is a non-issue for my point. exceptions like this are rare and do not change the overall consistency of other examples out there that show how one parents undeniably does affect ones kid. Anyway in all such cases the reason the kid deviates anyway from what you would expect the environment at home to produce in them the deviation is caused by some other environmental factor. with the example in religious belief. though his parents are theist trying to raise there kid in like manner the kid reads a book by Richard Dawkins and later one by Carl Sangan. Kids view changes. Reading a book is environmental. stress at school/work is environmental, non-trusting clingy girlfriends are environmental, smart friends are environmental, and I could go on.

As for the song, yeah its a song, and justin moore is a guy not a girl. you have not cited anything and you want to get picky with outside stuff I quote? by the same problem with referring to a song you give I could write off everything you say as "its just some blog from some writer, its not reality". My reference to it is not made in an appeal to authority anyway. I, unlike you, do not think who it is that 'said what' or 'thought what' has any bearing on the logic of a position.

I decided to use the song in this debate because the song is a) awesome and b) poetically articulates the issue in a sense that so common and relate-able to many that few would dare say the perspective about how 'he got to be this way' is blatantly wrong.
And so long as you concede experience does in fact teach us things and affects our quality then you concede the lyrics of the song make a valid point. And despite the fact that you say otherwise, experience is a environmental factor in at least a indirect since, and it is not a genetic one.

Now please turn your attention to this new video of an experiment done by John B. Watson. It's famously called the Little Albert experiment. Baby Albert likes rabbits, dogs, and mice, but then the cruel physiologist professors make him here a loud sound Albert does not like when the mouse comes near. Watson successfully conditioned through ENVIRONMENTAL factors the baby to be afraid of the mouse without the sound (and all fuzzy animals it seems) for the rest of his life.
This, unlike my opponents absurd, and most importantly un-sourced ,made up chimp test, actually does prove my case. Its very clear to see how simple environmental factors can affect facets of who we are like determining what we are afraid of but that such environmental factors can be replicated in the lab.

Pro tries to say his definition of quality does not mean 'physical features' and yet then contradicts himself by referring to my own 'dating an Irish girl' example right afterwords saying its 'proof' that environment does not affect human quality.

In summery...
a) what socialist think does not affect pro or con toward the resolution.
b) I have shown why its not important for Pro or anyone for that matter to personally think they should raise there kids to see the facts that are known from those that do raise them support environment affects quality
c) I have shown differences in kids from parents is a non-issue both by pointing out the non-effect 'exceptions' have the collective whole of data, and I have shown how exceptions in kid from parents is from environmental factors as well anyway
d) I reminded Pro of the disconnect between source and author of source and how they do not make or break something as valid.
e) experiences are environmental, not genetic, at the very least in an indirect way, they are in no way genetic
f) I have provided practical examples of how environment affects aspects of your life that can probably reflect upon from where you sit from your own memories. Pro has provided no such thing
g) pro contradicts himself concerning the physical feature thing.
h) pro has not sourced anything at all
i) I not only have sourced but gave a video of the experiment I chose to refer to being done to an actual baby.
j) the Little Albert experiment proves environmental conditioning affected the quality of the child, leaving it emotionally scarred for the rest of its life afraid of cute fuzzy bunnies. something it was shown to not genetically be afraid of before the conditioning.

Pro has failed to refute anything I have said, and now has new contentions and evidence to deal with in his last chance for rebuttal next round. Though he has typed much and in big bold large print, he has failed to actually say anything as of yet.

Should the last round go roughly like the first 2, I think those of you kind enough to read this debate have more than enough reason right now to VOTE CON

so far anyway.... debates not quite over yet....

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

xxx200 forfeited this round.
Marauder

Con

Arguments extend.

vote Con if for no other reason than Pro forfeited, but comment and let me know if you all think I should win this debate had it flat out been set to end at round 2. I kind of gave a closing argument anticipating this would happen then.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
oh, man, just 3 hours left now, your going to forfeit the last round aren't you?
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
I'm probably going to have my argument in by tomorrow, at worst i might push my time 2 days. Once its your turn again, do you mind turning off the bold. its a sour on the eyes. it can be tasteful for select emphasis but your whole post should not blandly be bold.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
Macroscope
Ow my ears.

Why are you shouting!
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
It's probably HTML. You can use it in the debates and PMs, just not in the forums.

To xxx200: Why are all your debates in very large, bold font? It makes it very difficult for people to read them.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
How did you manage to insert a table?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Troll alert!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
xxx200MarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebuts the monkey experiment to which Pro has no real response. Conduct for Forfeit. SG: xxx200 is guaranteed to lose SG on every debate he participates in because of his horrible font.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
xxx200MarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO loses conduct for FF and structure.