Optimism vs. Pessimism

== Optimism and Physical Health ==(A) My opponent agrees that less stress is preferable. He suggests defensive pessimism thwarts anxiety. However I argued that pessimism forces one to think about potential problems that may or may not occur. It specifically induces stress through the belief that something bad WILL happen, not just COULD happen. Anxiety is the fear, and pessimism is the sincere belief that the fear is justified through probability. Thus pessimism fuels anxiety. More importantly, I've provided multiple sources proving optimistic people have less cortisol levels than pessimists. Con has 100% failed to provide a single source indicating the opposite. Therefore, the audience has every reason to accept that optimists have less stress, less cortisol - as proven by thoroughly proven scientific research, and that optimism = less cortisol (i.e. better health) than pessimism. (B) Con claims that my source "agrees with his argument." He also notes that the article presents the benefits and downsides of BOTH optimism and pessimism, so even if the article agrees with some of his contentions, it proves nothing. He highlights, "Pessimists are always looking to identify the holes or mistakes in a line of thinking so that they can become better." But pessimists don't believe they can improve. Believing that one can improve is an *optimistic* outlook, not a pessimistic one. (C) Once again Con says I have only proven a "correlation" between optimism and increased social circles. That is blatantly false. I have provided both explanation and sourced citations (of valid, peer reviewed research - research that Con has completely ignored) with thorough analysis describing this link. I explained that optimistic people were more outgoing and likable as backed by evidence. Con admitted that pessimistic people are more likely to be recluse. The research I cited claims "people who were isolated and under stress faced greater risk of injuries that could cause bacterial infection — and thus would need to respond by ramping up genes associated with inflammation, to help heal wounds and fight off those infections."(D) The argument here was that having greater social circles strengthens one's immune system. In response, my opponent has gone on a hysterical rant to rally against my sources through unsubstantiated and exaggerated criticisms. He failed to provide a single source contradicting my claims (!) or validating any claims on his own behalf. He has not proven that exposure to more people does NOT improve one's immune system, because that claim has been proven true (via evolution) which I have explained and proven with scientific facts and sources. Extend all of my arguments from points C and D. Throughout this debate, I have explained why (and proven through various sources) that optimistic people are more outgoing and considered more enjoyable to be around than pessimists. They are more likely to be around other people and seek greater social networks. Con has presented no evidence whatsoever nor any analysis to indicate this claim is false. As such, optimism is the direct CAUSE (and not just correlation) of being exposed to more people and having a greater network. Being exposed to more people strengthen's one's immune system for aforementioned reasons, and having stronger support networks improves (and protects) one's health for reasons I've also highlighted throughout this debate. Ergo optimism is the direct CAUSE of many factors triggering better health outcomes, in addition to all of the data measuring positivity's association with recovery. There is no data correlating pessimism with positive health, which is why Con hasn't provided any. == Optimism and Mental Health == (A) Con concedes he has no proof that pessimists have less cortisol.(B) My opponent writes "I claimed that defensive pessimism, which is foreseeing LIKELY and AVOIDABLE, pitfalls reduces anxiety." Then he goes on another hysterical rant suggesting I've somehow straw manned him because I said "foreseeing and exaggerating potential problems" does not thwart anxiety. He claims he "never fucking said this" even though I just presented his exact quote where he said that. He said FORESEEING problems reduces anxiety; the part about exaggerating them is inherently linked to pessimism's definition. Once again, the very definition of pessimism requires one to assume the worst. Therefore I am not straw manning his position - he thinks looking for (and assuming the worst about) potential problems minimizes anxiety, whereas I've argued that it heightens anxiety. He can disagree, but he cannot (abusively) accuse me of yet another unsubstantiated fallacy like he has done throughout this debate. (C) I wrote that Con said optimism causes a decline in mental health, but that he has not proven it. My opponent once again responded in a nasty and disrespectful way with yet another lie. He asks "What? When did I claim this?" and then says I need Jesus. Yet here is his direct quote saying optimism (the opposite of pessimism) causes a decline in mental health from Con's Round 4. "I argued that pessimism doesn't cause a decline in mental health and that it is actually vice versa."So yes, my opponent did say that, and he has still completely failed to prove it. (D) Con argues that health problems cause pessimism and I am suggesting it could be the other way around (or that pessimism can contribute toward worsening health). To back up my claim, I presented research proving that optimistic people showed better rates of recovery and much better physical and mental health. In Round 3, I also presented citations from the Harvard medical community noting "Scientists have adjusted their analyses to account for pre-existing medical conditions. The studies that made these adjustments found that existing illnesses did not tarnish the benefits of optimism." Ergo one is not only optimistic or pessimistic as a result of pre existing conditions. I posted research stating "Pessimists nurtured little hope for the future and were more at risk for depressive and anxiety disorders" indicating pessimism helped contribute toward exacerbating those disorders. Furthermore, I presented research (Round 3, source 6) explaining optimism increases the perception of life satisfaction, and therefore inhibits depression, suicide and other mood disorders. Once again Con did not challenge this research, and he failed to discredit the link between optimism and positive mental health. He again repeats "correlation does not equal causation" which I have said about 10x throughout this debate is true, and irrelevant to my arguments. == Optimism and Success == (A) My opponent challenges my claim that "By DEFINITION, optimists tend to be hopeful and confident about the future or the success of something." He says "[Her] citation doesn't say that. I s**t you not, it doesn't even try to make that claim. It's just google's default definition." Here we can see Con literally argue against his own point. He admits that the GOOGLE DEFAULT DEFINITION of the word says exactly what I said it did. While Con argues against himself, he doesn't discount the point that optimists are more likely to believe in their ideas and ability to succeed (which was my contention). Optimists assume the best, pessimists presume the worst. My point stands. Optimists have more hope and therefore are more likely to pursue and thus achieve their goals. (B) Con does some more irrelevant ranting. Then he addresses my point on the effects of pessimism. I explained that if one has a 50/50 chance at winning something, being pessimistic (assuming one will not win) doesn't actually do anything at all to inhibit their chances of winning. My opponent has failed to disprove this logic and thus my point stands. He repeats that pessimists look for reasonable downfalls, but I explained that optimists do not discount downfalls. They simply consider and value hope and positivity in their cost/benefit analysis more strongly than pessimists. (C) After more nasty commentary by my opponent, the point remains: he has not proven that pessimism was more useful than optimism, and he relies on the same generalizations of optimists that he hypocritically chastises the opposition for. (D) Con says "Pro says pessimists are less likely to begin new projects but I've shown how that is radical pessimism and shouldn't be categorized under DP." Radical pessimism has nothing to do with my contention; I am talking about pessimism in general. I have repeatedly explained why we are talking about optimism and pessimism in general. Con continues, "She claims optimists are better at dealing with setbacks and problem solving, while I addressed this before and has gone unanswered." Absolutely nowhere in this debate did Con explain that pessimists are better at dealing with set backs and problem solving. Instead he argued they foresee problems strategically, which is not the same thing. I've provided explanation to my point along with analysis on why optimists are better at dealing with constructive criticism. == Optimism and Happiness == My opponent has dropped this section along with my Rebuttal section. Extend my arguments on why optimists are proven to be happier specifically because they are optimistic. == Conclusion ==In conclusion, Con writes that debating on balance is "a horrible stance." This statement is nonsensical. Extend all of my arguments about why we MUST debate optimism vs. pessimism on balance, including but not limited to DP and SO. Throughout this debate, my opponent has completely failed to provide any credible research or evidence in his favor. Moreover he has been nasty, disrespectful and abusive through both directly insulting me and utilizing manipulative debate tactics. Thus in addition to winning Arguments (proving that optimists have better physical and mental health than pessimists), I have also won Sources and Conduct points.