Talent is innate

I have tried to make this my most comprehensive argument yet. The others were a bit rushed. My opponent wishes me to comment more on Mozart so I will. Without any sort of evidence, Pro insists that Mozart's father passed down some sort of genetic music ability. Pointing out that his father was a musician does nothing for his case because there is no way to tell he has any sort of innate ability either. It is a fact that Mozart's father gave Mozart training and fed his musical taste from an early age. If Mozart picked all his talent up on his own without practicing then that would be a different story. When I said that genetic advantages do not qualify as talent, I meant that in themselves these advantages are not talent. I'm not meddling with the definition. As I tried to explain in the second round, aptitude can't be exclusively talent, and least not the talent we are speaking of. The definition is a little more complex because the definition also should entail a certain amount of skill. Genetic advantages are influential in sports, but so is skill. Sports favor Pro's position in that physical bonuses can influence performance, but Pro has failed to show any genetic influence in the realm of skill. So aptitude has something to do with talent, but it is not equivalent to it. Likewise, skill is dependent on certain aptitudes. If we don't have a brain, we cannot be skilled at anything really. Let's talk about chess. My opponent incorrectly claims that Laszlo Polgar was an international chess master. When he decided to experiment on Susan, the oldest, he originally was going to choose mathematics, but she happened to stumble across a chess set. He was only an amateur at chess and there was no family history of brilliant chess players. Laszlo just took the game and started to teach his daughters at a very young age. [1] Also, after research, I found that the game doesn't even favor the male brain. Males overwhelmingly outnumber females – that's the likely explanation. Like many of my opponent's assertions, he gives no evidence or source for males being more suited for chess. About my statement that it takes 10 years to become an expert, it is obviously an approximate statistic. The youngest grandmaster, (at the age of 12 mind you) took around 6 or 7 years to become an expert. This is still plausible with intense practice. Also, we develop skills quicker at a young age. The point is if someone practices at something for around 10 years, they will probably be ridiculously good at it. My opponent says chess requires more than memory, but it is mostly dependent on memorization of patterns. It isn't like the other things like, "position analysis, creativity, staring down opponents" can't be taught. If Polgar was never educated in chess, there is no evidence whatsoever that, "her mind would still be optimized for playing chess." But let's take the example of someone who outperforms his or her peers. Yes, they are talented, but does it derive from genes or is it dependent on their other skills and that they have grown up transferred to other areas of life? My opponent's argument here is based on the baseless assumption that we are optimized from birth for a certain talent. Instead potential talent could be developed at an early stage. Again, I'm not finding anything that supports my opponent's case in this argument potential talent. He is just restating his opinion. He points out that anyone can practice; yet not all are talented. Well, not everybody dedicates the amount of practice necessary to become uniquely talented at something. Also, personality and earlier circumstances must be taken into consideration. I will agree that winning the Olympic 100M will probably require an athlete especially built for sprinting, but it will also require someone with experience and skill. It will be someone who has made himself faster and worked on every aspect of racing. This is why it doesn't really confirm the resolution. But it doesn't support my position either, because racing is dependent on some genetic factors as well. Racing doesn't compare to something like chess or soccer, which is very skill and memory oriented. Racing is more of an exception because of how much height and muscle fibers matter. When looking at talent in general, whether it is being able to speak well or being a good tennis player, genetics play a very little part. I won't get into a debate with Messi being the best in the world. He has been declared the best player by FIFA twice now. Anyway, I would strongly disagree that the aptitudes described are unusual to the average person. Speed and endurance are important, but there are many untalented soccer players with speed and endurance. Also, it is something that can be worked on. Those who are especially slow are probably so because they weren't as involved in athletics at a young age. Basically, most athletically inclined persons have enough speed and endurance for soccer, but most of them are not talented in any way at soccer. Soccer skill comes with practice. Coordination to pass comes from passing over and over thereby creating muscle memory. The best players have therefore been playing soccer their whole lives. The reason that not everyone who has been playing soccer their whole lives succeeds is usually because they are unwilling to make a full commitment. Regarding Michael Phelps, I was trying to make the point that much of his ability comes from the untypical amount of practice he put in throughout his life. Sure, he gets an edge from his body structure, but others have similar body structure and can't beat him. The fact that kids don't do as well when they are told they are gifted just shows how influential practice and hard work is in determining talent. My opponent has answered the crucial question of who was ever successful without practice. Genghis Khan is the first example. My opponent seems to not realize that his father was a tribe leader who educated Genghis from a young age about battle tactics. I would say that his father's teachings were crucial to his success as a leader. He also had other experienced leaders around him. To claim Genghis Khan had no practice at all before his conquest is quite ridiculous. I cannot really comment about my opponent's little brother since I nor anyone else has any knowledge about him. It's not a very good example for this debate. William Hobson clearly obtained skills necessary to be a statesman over his life, and that can be contributed to his success. I think this principle can be used with your other examples as well. Then Pro claims, "There are literally no examples of a person being successful without any innate ability." I would agree to certain extent, but we are not simply talking about ability but talent. We all need a brain to debate, but we need talent to debate well. I'll leave the rest to the voters. [1] http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk...