Talent is innate

When looking at the heritability of IQ, we must not make assumptions about IQ, because it is the subject of much debate. It does not always directly correlate with ability to acquire talent and does not even necessarily decide intelligence. There are many people with average IQ with unusual ability. You can find chess grandmasters, exceptional musicians, and artists all of average IQ. Polgar still doesn't seem an inherited case. My opponent suggests that Polgar inherited some of her father's chess genius. There isn't really any evidence for this; neither of her parents were unusually talented chess. Her parent's training is likely a far better explanation. Also, her sisters had a great influence as well. Judit also became more successful than her sisters because she was the youngest and naturally curious about her sisters' hobby. Her experiences as the youngest brought about a different dedication to chess that her sisters didn't exhibit. The fact that she outperformed her sisters is also strong evidence for my case. My opponent made a case that she is thwarted by her female brain. However, I would say that this greatly favors my arguments. Yes, there are differences in the male and female brains, but how great are they? How much do they affect talent? The fact that Polgar has overcome a supposed weakness in the female brain and become the youngest grandmaster of her time shows that such effects can be overcome. My opponent must remember that she defeated some of the greatest male chess players of her time. The point is not whether one can be the greatest at something anyway. Talent is not defined as being the most skilled something, but rather it has to do with being very skilled at something. Polgar ended up being unusually good at chess even though others might have genetic advantages of her. As I said, a genetic advantage is not equivalent to talent. If someone has the genetic potential to do well in athletics, yet they don't choose to do athletics, will they be talented in athletics? No, they will probably not be very good at them. If a person is supposed to be fast but has never learned to run then they will be very slow. Those uncoordinated people at school are uncoordinated because of their lack of athletic involvement or timidness when it comes to it. Genetically, they are built to be runners like every human is–except those with genetic disabilities. Remember, it's NBA, not NFL. Let's say there is a competition to see who can reach the highest. I suppose a giant would win since giants a tallest. But that doesn't really qualify as talent. Talent in sports, especially the ones we are discussing, is often a mix between genetic advantages and skill. You usually need both in order to be talented. A midget wouldn't be much of a basketball player, but if a person is tall and unskilled, neither are they. For this reason, sports like basketball and running are poor examples that don't really help either case. This is also why I play soccer because all you need is skill and hard work. Lionel Messi, the best player on earth, grew up with a hormone deficiency but overcame all odds with his genius and skill. My opponent lowers human potential down to a level where some can succeed and others are destined to fail. This is very detrimental to individuals on both sides. Studies show that telling kids they are gifted hurts their ability to succeed. They begin to slack off because they feel they are born with their ability and it will always stay with them. Human potential is much greater in that, while it may be easier to acquire skills or some people have some edge, it can usually be made up with dedicated practice. Speaking of unique cases, yes, there is some genetic heritability of IQ and there are some advantages, but there are so many other factors that could be more responsible than these genetics. Let's look closely at my opponent's main point: "Many people are trained, but only very few excel. What makes you truly talented, beyond the norm, is not the training (because otherwise all who train would excel) but natural ability." There is nothing to support this, and there are plenty of examples where this fails. Polgar's case is one. Chess players build patterns in their head through repeated practice. It takes around 10 years to become an expert. Polgar is certainly an expert, and her career isn't over. Even if they do have some genetic bonus, those who excel do so because of determination and practice. What person has succeeded without determination and practice? Michael Phelps had a body structure perfect for swimming, but more importantly, he had been swimming since he was five and had an extremely intense practice routine. Studies also show that IQ is not a determining factor of success but rather practice is most important. With determination average people excel constantly.