human gene or human environment determines human quality

http://www.youtube.com... 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.