Talent is innate

As I see it, voters in this debate will have to decide two key questions. ..1. Is there any evidence for talent not being innate? It is false to say I presented no evidence that most of people's minds and bodies are inherited from parents. If you'll look back to round 2 you'll see my evidence for inheriting mental abilities. If you'll look back to round one, you'll see my evidence for inheriting physical abilities (ie speed in 100M final being tied to race). Very little of these abilities is actually determined by practice. Most is determined by innate ability. So when we're talking about evidence for Mozart, only one side in this debate has had any at all. Only one side had a relevant source. Only one side has not just been stating their opinion. The affirmative side alone has given you credible reasons to believe Mozart's talent, though undoubtedly honed by his upbringing, was mostly innate. I'm absolutely sure that Laszlo was an international master at chess, because I happen to have one of his books (which, by the way, is about chess), where the blurb notes that the author was an international master. You can also find plenty of old games commentated by him on the Internet. The whole "changed his mind when Susan saw a chessboard" story is clearly a dream of my opponent, and on chessbase you can even find photographs of the press conference at which Laszlo, who had recently written a book about teaching young children to grow up to be geniuses (immediately after finishing his fourth book on chess) announced that his three as-yet-unborn children would each become experts at chess (. http://www.chessbase.com...). After this barrage of assertions, my opponent contradicts his earlier narrative with his assertion that chess doesn't favor the male brain. Countless years of scientific and psychological research contradicts that assertion. See . http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com... and . http://health.howstuffworks.com.... As an aside, the third page of the howstuffworks link also includes a quote from the person who examined Einstein's brain and found that its unusual structure must have been formed at birth. You may recall that I actually did justify all that previously with reference to the necessity of womans-only tournaments. Lastly, the reason why my opponent's 10 years figure is only approximate is because some people get chess much faster than others. These are the people with a genetic advantage. If training was most of what mattered, one would expect all three Polgar sisters to be the top three in the world, but only two are even grandmasters. That's indicative of a difference not in upbringing, which was nearly identical, but in how they actually think about chess. In other words, genetic variation. Being a trained scientist as well as a chess player, Laszlo Polgar knew the importance of control in his grand experiment. If Polgar was never educated in chess, there is very good evidence that "her mind would still be optimized for playing chess. " That's because ~80% of her mind is inherited from her dad, who I've repeatedly explained was a good chess player. I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm not just restating my opinion. There is no perfect correlation between hours spent at the pool and world swimming ranking. There are hundreds of people who have played and practiced soccer just as much as, if not more than, Messi but who haven't managed to pay off FIFA . .. err, I mean, who haven't been world champions yet. Claiming that Messi is the most committed player in the world is categorically wrong. Xavi, Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo and Kaka are all exceptional players who missed out, despite having been playing and practicing for much longer than Lionel Messi. Saying that none of these players have made a "full commitment" is both ignorant and disrespectful. The same thing goes with Phelps. Michael Phelps' training is not atypical for Olympic athletes, however it is he, not the hundreds of other competitors from all around the globe, who snatched the majority of the swimming gold medals. What made him the most talented swimmer at the Olympics? His body structure. Others may have similar body structure, but there are no knowlegable people that would deny his is the best.2. Is there any evidence for talent being innate? This one is easy. The answer is yes. Our mind and body are mostly determined before we are born. It is by using our mind and body that we are talented (although I'm not sure my opponent is really sure what he means by talent, given the numerous internal contradictions in his case as to the definition of talent, at least one of which was a clear squirrel and conduct violation). Talent implies the need for our abilities to be somehow superior to the norm. If our minds and bodies are mostly inherited, it follows that our performance is mostly inherited too. But this logical case, backed by sources, a counter-analysis of my opponent's example, and my example of the men's 100M final, were not enough for my opponent, so he asked for some more examples. Last round, I provided several. Two-thirds of them my opponent actually had some rebuttal to, so let me address that now. According to the Secret History of the Mongols (the main primary source about Ghengis Khan), Ghengis Khan's father was killed by the Merkits when he was still a very young boy. I find it very unlikely that Ghengis Khan's father gave world-conquering lessons to a toddler, especially since my opponent asserts that it takes about ten years before talent can develop. After this time Ghengis Khan's father's tribe was taken over by a rival, and the future world-conqueror was forced into exile instead of learning the art of war. He survived by living as a slave among other tribes, and was later taken as a prisoner by the Kara Khitai, before claiming his tribe back again and immediately proceeding to conquer the world. I don't think a life of servitude and imprisonment is good education for conquering the world. Ghengis Khan is said to have had so little education that he couldn't even read or write. So how did Ghengis get such ability from his father if not by teaching? Simple. The secret to Ghengis' success was his genetics. On William Hobson, it isn't enough to say "he learnt as he went along. " Winners of marathons don't usually pick up new techniques as they run along and thereby win. Most of the debates I've learnt the most from are the ones I have lost. People don't learn much by doing well, and people don't do well from the outset without pre-existing ability. Hobson's pre-existing ability cannot be due to learning. That must be genetics. Hobson's continuing of doing well was not due to learning as he went, because he was doing well. It was due to the very same pre-existing ability, and the confirmation of his trust in it. Most early British colonial governors, such as the incredibly visionary George Grey when he was still in Australia, had absolutely no prior experience. It's also no coincidence that most failed horribly, but that a few succeeded is evidence of learning not from experience or learning, but from innate ability. SummaryTo meet my burden of proof, I did not need to show that practice counts for nothing. Experience is important too. You won't enter the record books without hard work and dedication. I have, however, shown two things. First, I have shown that not everyone who practices the most becomes the best. Second, I have shown that some people with very little or no practice can still be really good at something. These facts, combined with my empirical evidence, rebuttal of my opponent's arguments, and scientific sources, lead to one inevitable conclusion. Talent is not wholly, but mostly, a product of your genetics. I urge a pro vote. Thanks.