The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

nur·ture [nur-cher] Show IPA verb, nur·tured, nur·tur·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to feed and protect: to nurture one's offspring.
2.
to support and encourage, as during the period of training or development; foster: to nurture promising musicians.
3.
to bring up; train; educate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nurture

The nature versus nurture debate is about the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or philosophical empiricism, innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture") in determining individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The philosophy that humans acquire all or most of their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate").

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, nature refers to an individual's innate qualities (nativism or innatism). In the "nature vs nurture" debate, nurture refers to personal experiences (i.e. empiricism or behaviorism).

Example: Nature is your genes. The physical and personality traits determined by your genes stay the same irrespective of where you were born and raised. Nurture refers to your childhood, or how you were brought up. Someone could be born with genes to give them a normal height, but be malnourished in childhood, resulting in stunted growth and a failure to develop as expected.

Factors: Nature factors that trigger an individual to commit crime are influences by biological and family factors.
Nurture factors that trigger an individual to commit crime are influences by social and environmental factors.

www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture

[Deleted]

The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.

The phrase "Nature versus nurture" in its modern sense was coined[1][2][3] by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement, although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in his play, The Tempest: 4.1). Galton was influenced[4] by the book On the Origin of Species written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized[3][4] for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to genetic offspring.

The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed tabula rasa ("blank slate") by philosopher John Locke, and proposes that humans develop from only environmental influences. This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge.[5][6][6][7][8]

In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be contrasted with the structure versus agency debate (i.e. socialization versus individual autonomy). For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological nativism.