human gene or human environment determines human quality

For some ignorant reason, Pro has decided to start out by labeling my side the communist socialist side. I can not imagine how Pro concludes that, but for the record in this debate it is not being defended by a communist or a socialist. I am a Capitalist and very conservative. This may seem like a pointless thing to waist character space on but I just want to set the tone for this debate that the logic of our environments role on who we are (our quality) is inescapable to all with any foundation for there beliefs.i label the con side communist socialist because communist people believe that environment affects human quality. it is by no means a waist of character space.I want to make it clear that its understood why pro is not just wrong but that its important not to take his conclusion seriously. If we accepted that our environment does not affect our quality, or who we are or become, but that its just in the genes, what would this imply about the point to raising your children? After all why worry about them, whatever they will grow up into has already been determined by the DNA. if you wanted to change them for the better you would have to introduce new DNA into them (not possible yet in practice). Since that cannot be done, then there is no helping what will happen to your child. You cant raise them to respect the law officers, you just have to hope that's in there genes. you cant get them to be well educated by filling there lives with books as they grow up, they wont learn to exercise by seeing you exercise, and my list could go on and on...why should we raise our kids and why should we worry about our kids are questions to ourselves. some parents worry, some don't, some just left their kids. i think this depends on our belief systems. even if we teach our kids to respect law officer, did they do that ? didn't they have a problem with law officers?The truth is your children are very affected by what you do and teach as they grow up. The things you often show value in they will value too as they grow up http://home.earthlink.net...... http://jurino.com...... How you raise them matters. If you make an open habit of swearing around them, they will end up swearing early on in life cause they learned from you it must be okay, if your not responsible with your money they will not be responsible with there money, If you start showing it matters to you and show you expect it of them they will treat being responsible with there money as something that matters http://www.daveramsey.com......now come to the value system. did all our kids of human race take up the values given by their parents ? i have heard cases where children of orthodox christian parents turned into atheist or member of other religions. i am not giving any reference supporting this argument because you can find this kind of cases in your own locality as well as in the world at large. so the conclusion is what we teach, our kids will not accept.If you will all now turn your attention to the video of the Justin Moore song, go ahead and play it and listen to the lyrics. is there any line in that song you find blatantly false? how about just a little off? There's really nothing at all that strikes me as too out there to say in the lyrics. An example I will pull from it "I've been kicked in the face by a hours, cause I ran up too fast behind him..." In this part of the song the singer describes how he's learned to not run up real fast behind hours. in a very painful fashion. that's environment he is describing that gave him this cautious quality. not his DNA. not his genes. Through the song he describes all the events of his life that made him "..a little bit harder and a whole lot smarter". All said events are descriptions of what would have to be called environmental factors in this debate over the option of calling them gene factors.now the song. it is a song. it is not reality. it is created by somebody out of his/her imagination.now come to the point of learning of the singer. she learned from what we call experience and not from environment.i don't think that such an imaginary thing could be an evidence in any debate.Now to address the monkey test.... This test makes no noteworthy point for this debate resolution because it of very absurd, not practical degree's. Everything I have refereed to to make my case about environment being the determining factor to human quality, to forming who we are as we grow up from child to adult, has been of practical practice ones that we all know so well. to show you how absurd the test is lets make the same test but to make my case for environment factors. Take one human and inject monkey blood into his veins, or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from the monkey directly into the mans privates. results should show the man will die. now take one monkey and put human blood in its veins or if you have the equipment transfer DNA from human directly to this monkeys privates. same result. In nether of these cases will the species change species. Therefore we can see there quality have nothing to do with DNA..... do you see how silly this monkey test is now? now come to the monkey test. how do you know it is very absurd? have you performed that test ? did your pets acquire some human quality? did it talk or walk like a human being?now the test you have described is obviously absurd one. you ask me to inject monkey or human blood, but i am talking about human gene. gene is not blood and vice versa. if you inject human blood into monkey or vice versa, both human and monkey may die.but if you inject genes, the result cannot be predicted because such test has not been carried out yet.moreover, i have never mentioned gene transfusion or blood transfusion in my test.Also interesting to note, dating a Irish woman will not give me red hair. But why should we care about that in this debate? My opponent started his opening case by defining 'quality' as including our creativity, our intellect, our ability to invent. But his case about the monkey test seems to show he's thinking of 'quality' as something of our physical features. my defination of quality includes both crative ability and talking, walking or behaving like human.i have never said quality includes physical feature. from where my opponent brings physical feature in the defination of quality, i don't know. dating an irish woman will not change your hair color again proves that environment has no effect over human physical feature.in fact environment has no effect over human quality and physical feature.Your genes will determine if you have red hair, they will determine how tall you are and they may even determine how easily the sun will burn your skin. some peoples genes determine if they need to have sugar more often than most in there diet or not at all. Some peoples genes determines how prone they are to a heart attack. But the full depth of who we are, of our 'quality' that is determined after we are born, by the environment we grow up in. If grow up in the environment of France I will grow up speaking french. But I was in fact born and grew up in America, and I learned English. I grew up in the south and learned to speak that English with a particular dialect.if you grow up in france, you no doubt speak french but if you grow up in the rain forest of congo in africa amongst other animals, will you behave like them ? will you walk in 4 legs, drink with your toung, roar like them, or hunt like them ?