Why do they attract a lot of debate in the first place?
To begin with, nature is defined as a wholesome genetic makeup of a person including the influences emanating from hereditation which eventually makes people who they are physically and with regards to their persona.
Accordingly, the nativists are advancing the argument that inheritance is the cause of character formation as well as behavior. According to other schools of thoughts, the characteristics, as well as man's behavior, emanate from a process of evolution whereby the genes and their characteristics are transferred right from the lineage to the child.
These traits are carried further to the point of adulthood and they are what defined our uniqueness.
Experience, therefore, plays an important role in enabling us to learn new things and nurture new behavior.
Then, there is a concept based on behavioral science which heavily hinges on Empiricism a concept taking a stand that learning is the mother of our behavior, as well as our character, further explores nature versus nurture.
Whether nature in the context of its proponents is the sole influencer of whom we become or nurture significantly outweighs nature in its influencing role is an argument that is neither there nor here.
The recognition has been accorded to the fact that both nature and nurture are critically paramount as they play an equal role in determining what we become and our character as people.
While this shouldn't be the case, biologists have fervently pushed their idea that nature is what influences a person's behavior other than influencing their overall development.
In fact, the insistence has been that genetic composition within a man as well as the biological factors is what defines nature and.