Let's talk the nature vs nurture debate. Which side do you take, and why? It would also be greatly appreciated if you could include links to some articles that talk about it. 

Neither ... Or Both ... Depending on your view.

If it was strictly nurture, there wouldn't be examples of people who grow up in affluence turning to crime.

If it was strictly nature, there wouldn't be examples of people turning their life around ... Either from bad to good, or good to bad.

Thus, it's a combination of both factors.

I contributed on a very similar question here about 5 years ago. I'm not an expert (my sister probably is, I might ask her). I do remember an article in Nature magazine about 15 years ago that  suggested it was 90% nature and 10% nurture. I believe that data was supported by studies using separated identical twins. This raises substantial moral dilemmas. Are some people just "born bad"? If so, does it mean they can't help themselves? Thus is their behaviour not their fault? Tricky stuff.

I was composing an answer for you and was about to begin by apologizing for no longer considering this a debate.  Then I searched nature vs nurture debate and found this on Wikipedia:  "In their 2014 survey of scientists, many respondents wrote that the dichotomy of nature versus nurture has outlived its usefulness, and should be retired."

So I'll skip the apology, although the debate does lead to useful distinctions for categorization.

A few broad observations by me: 

1) About 3% of humans born are "broken."  (Sociopath, psychopath, etc.) 

2) Infants (0-9) show distinct "personality" differences, at least in a very general sense.

3)  One of the keys to success seems to be being a person with high self esteem.  Parents are capable of having a great effect on the development of their child's self esteem by how they treat them as they grow---they can "nurture" it (there's that word) or stunt its growth.

4) All of us are vulnerable to the possibility of random trauma and may need professional help to recover from such an experience.

Have you seen Jeannie the 13 year old who was locked in her room all her life?

There is no nature vs nurture debate in science, only social science remains confused about this issue and takes "sides," sometime within the same discipline.  It is NATURE VIA Nurture! Any biologist could tell you this. Genes act against the immediate environment, so genes are not opposed to environment ( or nurture ).

http://www.academia.edu/12130846/Putting_the_Nature_vs._Nurture_Debate_to_Rest

Many papers accessible on the web put this false dichotomy to rest.

I believe it is a combination of both.  How much either factors in depends on the individual.

I wrote this paper that sort answers the question. It takes the research on Schizophrenia and illustrates how a person can develop it either through biological means--it is in their genes and therefore gives them a predisposition to it, or through environmental influences--large amounts of stress over extended periods of time can lead a person to develop the disorder as well. Thus, I would say that the question above is flaw in itself because one cannot predict the life of an organism because are too many factors that could influence it. 

You asked for a link to consider in reaching your conclusion-

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009048#h=2:0-21:55