<p>What side are you on? </p>
<p>My opinon: While both sides are influential, nature has a greater impact. Just look at feral children--it's an extreme example but it fits. Anyone hear about Genie? Such a tragic story. :(</p>
<p>Impact on what? Different things are impacted differently. Who you are as a person is influenced by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.</p>
<p>yeah… why bring this question up?</p>
<p>i think it’s been agreed it’s a combination of both</p>
<p>Virtually nothing is in its entirety Nature or Nurture. Most behavior is a comination of both; thus, you should call it “Nature via Nurture,” not “Nature v. Nurture.”</p>
<p>Actually, the OP said “vs.” not “v.”. Interesting point:</p>
<p>vs: versus
v: against</p>
<p>Those are the same thing. See here: [Versus</a> | Define Versus at Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/versus]Versus”>Versus Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)</p>
<p>“Versus” and “against” mean the same thing, but the abbreviations “vs” and “v” indicate different words, so should be differentiated.</p>
<p>As you can see in my link, in the second definition, “versus” can be abbreviated by both v. and vs. If there even is a difference as you say, it is negligible. A petty argument at best.</p>
<p>I see someone is taking AP Psych</p>
<p>=D</p>
<p>You, my friend, are right. But still, I’m telling the truth.</p>
<p>I know some judges that aren’t fond of people thinking “Smith v. Jones” is “Smith versus Jones”, as opposed to “Smith against Jones”. But excuse me for not holding dictionary.com to the highest standard.</p>
<p>I like how we neatly wrapped up the OP’s question, haha.</p>
<p>Haha yeah.</p>
<p>Well to me the difference is so tiny that it really shouldn’t matter. Anyone who is honestly irritated is either (1) pretentious or (2) very detail/grammar oriented. Whatever, it’s a moot point.</p>
<p>…or (3) a judge. Or at least from my experience, with those who don’t seem to fit into (1) or (2). Honestly, I just brought it up because I’m bored.</p>
<p>Judges often fit into either (1) or (2). Not always, obviously, but fairly frequently. Meh.</p>
<p>Well, actually, yeah, I would hope they fit (2) when it comes to the law (detail oriented). Hm, a vague judge…</p>
<p>“According to the Constitution, you cannot do that because he has rights…”</p>
<p>Yeah that wouldn’t go over well.</p>
<p>Or, in another situation, “Your Honor, which statute are you citing?”</p>
<p>“4ish?”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>“I sentence you to several years in prison.”</p>
<p>“How many?”</p>
<p>“Eh, about 5, give or take.”</p>
<p>“Is this unlawful search and seizure? Eh, close enough I guess. Oh wait, he had a warrant? Fine, I guess it’s legal.”</p>
<p>“What do you mean ‘Was the warrant for his house?’? The street is the same… close enough.”</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>“I’m going to allow this.”</p>
<p>“Why?! It completely violates all regulations!”</p>
<p>“No, I’m fairly certain there’s precedent.”</p>
<p>“Like what?”</p>
<p>“[precedent case]”</p>
<p>“That was on Law and Order!”</p>
<p>“Whatever, I’m sure it’s based in fact.”</p>
<p>Haha oh Law and Order. Silly judges.</p>