Tabula Rasa (Blank Slate) a.k.a People are born with no bulit in Mental Content

It seems that my opponent does not understand what Tabula Rasa means. According to Wikipedia, Tabula Rasa is defined as:"Tabula Rasa is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. " The key word here is without. Tabula Rasa claims that people are born without mental content. My opponent says:"Yes Tabula Rosa does translate into blank slate, but that doesn't mean the theory believes that we have absolutely no mental capacity when we are born. "Actually, that is exactly what the theory states. The definition of Tabula Rasa is the idea that humans have "absolutely no mental capacity when we are born. This is a major problem in my opponent's argument, as he explicitly misrepresents the theory that he is defending, Tabula Rasa. Therefore, the argument from my last post stands and still disproves Tabula Rasa from an evolutionary standpoint. My opponent then says:"Based on this understanding of Tabula Rasa the Human and Dog argument is irrelevant. Evolution has made it possible for the human mind to comprehend spoken language, unlike a dog, but based on the newborn's experience it may take in a greater vocabulary, and learn more than another newborn. "This statement stems from the aforementioned misunderstanding of Tabula Rasa underlying my opponents argument. He says that evolution has made it possible for the human mind to comprehend spoken language, unlike a dog. In fact, if Tabula Rasa were correct, this would be impossible. The very fact that humans can comprehend spoken language and dogs can't disproves Tabula Rasa. To a much smaller degree, this would also be true of newborns. As I established in my last argument, evolution is all that separates humans from dogs, and evolution is also what separates humans from other humans. Therefore, differences between humans are evolutionary. Obviously, since dogs and trees cannot comprehend language, the ability to comprehend language is based on natural selection and evolution. Again, differences between humans are evolutionary. This would mean that humans should have different capacities to comprehend language. In other words, all functioning humans can comprehend language, but some have an easier time comprehending it than others. My opponent then says this:"By saying that Tabula Rasa is false you are saying that every human offspring should have the mental capacity, and social behaviors of their parents. During the Civil Rights movement in the United States many whites, were racist toward other colored people. If Tabula Rasa was false that would mean that if both parents were racist then their offspring should also be racist because the racist gene was passed down. The only problem with that statement is that many white children grew up and marched along sides Dr. King. The reason they marched was because the experiences in their life formed the notion in that racism is wrong. This also applies to sexism too. "This seems to stem from a misunderstanding from what Tabula Rasa means. My opponent seems to think that Tabula Rasa means that it is a mix of genes and environment that decide the human mind, while the opposition to Tabula Rasa believes that the human mind is genes alone. This is a grossly wrong contention. In fact, Tabula Rasa claims that the human mind is shaped by environment alone. The opposition to Tabula Rasa claims that environment and genes shape the human mind. Therefore, to prove Tabula Rasa, one must prove that genes have no impact on the human mind. This is something my opponent has not even attempted to do. My opponent's last argument is rendered largely useless by the fact that he misinterpreted Tabula Rasa. In fact, Tabula Rasa means that there is no built in mental content in the human mind. Unintentionally, my opponent conceded Tabula Rasa is false by admitting that genes have some bearing on the human mind. However, he simply tries to dodge this problem by changing the definition of Tabula Rasa. For evidence my opponent completely relies on anecdotal evidence, without providing any logical or scientific support for Tabula Rasa. His one historical example was the fact that children of racist parents marched with Martin Luther King. Assuming this is true, this still does not do anything to prove Tabula Rasa. The Human Mind is a series of complex interactions between genetic components of the mind and environment. The children that marched with Martin Luther King were obviously an example of this complex interaction. Furthermore, some traits, like intelligence, are more heritable than other traits, perhaps views on race could be included here. This would mean that a change in environment could do alot to make kids have less racist views, but do very little to raise intelligence. I conclude by saying that my opponent has not yet put forth a single argument for Tabula Rasa, as he seems to misunderstand what Tabula Rasa means. The example he did put forth was pure anecdotal evidence and is easily rendered a useless argument as it does not take into account what Tabula Rasa actually means. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...