People are predisposed to be followers by nature.

Thank you for the clarification! This is a very interesting question as I sated in round one. However, it is important to point out that the claim "Humans by nature are programmed to be followers," presents the relationship as dichotomous, when in fact it is not, the premise is actually a false dichotomy, when asserting a relationship between two variables as mutually exclusive. It simply cannot be the case that either human beings are pre programmed to be followers OR leaders. Conceptually, either one of these cases present very abstract and illogical. Take the first possibility; if all human beings were pre programmed to lead absolutely, we are presented with very perplexing ideas, contradicting not only themselves, but also conceptions in modern day science, economics, business, politics ect. Now in the second case, and my opponents argument; human beings are pre programmed to be followers absolutely, we again are left with very perplexing ideas on all the same issues above, but on the opposite extreme. Now i certainly do not want to misconstrue my opponents argument, as she states in her opening argument " Being a leader is something an individual must strive to achieve." My opponent is clearly aware of the possibility of one to become a leader in experience; however, in the very next sentence claims "Like many other abilities, leadership may come easy to some and hard for others but never is leadership abilities installed from birth," clearly distinguishing that one, and never the other may happen a priori (again, I am aware that this may not be the claim, but I felt it was necessary to display the chaos that a claim such as this would produce). This is where the false dichotomy appears, and which the three points listed as examples are supposed to profess. Rather than object to each point individually, I will argue that they are irrelevant to the argument based upon the fallacious premise they are asserted to prove. All three examples provided suffer from the same deficiency; that is, in both cases of the binary option, it is not only conceivable to imagine both limits of the choice, but more importantly, there is now very strong evidence linking the genetic makeup a child receives to their tendency, or likelihood to be able to achieve what society defines as "leadership" traits. ""We have identified a genotype, called rs4950, which appears to be associated with the passing of leadership ability down through generations," said lead author Dr Jan-Emmanuel De Neve (UCL School of Public Policy). "The conventional wisdom " that leadership is a skill " remains largely true, but we show it is also, in part, a genetic trait" (http://www.ucl.ac.uk...). If you examine the article, it asserts that just because an individual receives the genotype "rs4950," their ability to take advantage of that skill by way of experience is of more importance. After asserting the prominent scientific doubt surrounding old perceptions on the root of leadership tendencies, I will also present the unequal proportion of "resources" to these leadership skills. Just as a child that is bore to a wealthy family gains significant advantages in a variety of life domains, so too does a child that is born to a mother and a father who are at the top of their respective fields and its "leaders." The two may in fact be strongly correlated, with the total "resources" of the family one is born into being the independent variable, and the resulting leadership "exposure" being the dependent variable. If what I say is true, which I believe it is, then it may make less of a difference what an individuals genetic predisposition to follow or lead, but instead the "resources" he is exposed to. Either way, it appears that the moment a child is born, they have very little to say about how easy or hard one may have it, and thus making it a prior rather than a posteriori. I look forward to my opponents objections to my observations so I can continue this inspection.