Psycopathy is not a pathology it is a privelege and a gift it is the American Dream

SummaryPro argues only a psychopath can live the American dream, but offers no definition of "psychopath" and no support for this assertion. When I define "psychopath" and point out his lack of support for his assertion, he makes an extremely hard-to-understand objection to my definition, but he still does not offer a different definition, nor does he defend his original claim.DetailPro wins only by persuading you that the "traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy" are necessary for "the American dream". (i.e. you need to be a diagnosable psychopath in order to enjoy upward socioeconomic mobility in the US.)The question is: what exactly are traits of a diagnosable psychopath? Pro never cares to give an answer, so I answer it in R1. I list the traits in the Hare checklist. The Hare checklist is, literally, the list of traits that people use to diagnose psychopaths. It is what Pro's words in R1 refer to. This is not up for debate.Pro evidently objects in R2, but it is extremely difficult to determine exactly what his objection is because his post is so unclear and because he does not offer a different list of traits for diagnosing a psychopath. All I can divine from his post is his what I will do my best to paraphrase:"The Hare checklist describes criminal behavior, not psychopathy. My position is that psychopaths, not criminals, are successful in America. Therefore, my position is not that the traits on the Hare checklist are necessary for the American dream; instead, my position is that that the traits that distinguish a psychopathic criminal from a non-psychopathic criminal are the traits necessary for the American dream."First, that is not even a valid argument. Pro takes a logical leap from the true statement that "psychopath" and "criminal" are not synonyms to the false conclusion that, when defining "psychopath", we should ignore traits that correlate with criminality.Second, as I said earlier, this is not up for debate. In R1, Pro did not say "to live the American dream, you must be the kind of person I personally would generally call a psychopath." He said (paraphrasing) "to live the American dream, you must be a diagnosable psychopath." Again, the Hare checklist is used to make that diagnosis.Third, Pro never even defines "psychopath" or offers a different list of traits. If you reject my definition of "psychopath", then the term "psychopath" is undefined in this debate, and therefore, Pro's position contains an undefined term. You cannot vote for Pro's position if you do not even know what it means.It seems that what Pro is trying to do is to limit the debate to the strengths associated with psychopathy while ignoring the weaknesses. That will not work. Psychopathy is a mental condition (mental illness? personality disorder?) with largely negative consequences. In fact, psycopaths are far, far less likely to succeed in the US than non-psychopaths because they are so much likelier to be imprisoned.We have established that Pro can only win by convincing you that you need to have enough of the traits on the Hare checklist for a psychopathy diagnosis in order to move upward in the US, economically and socially. And there is no support whatsoever for this claim. Literally the only example of success he gives is "getting to the top in an organization." But that is an extremely narrow definition of "success".You can move upward socially and economically by offering pretty much anything of value. For example, if you are from a poor family and you grow up to be a very good baker and you make good money baking, then you are living the American dream. I would like to see Pro argue that only a psychopath can become a good baker.A baker is, of course, just an example. Just pick your favorite type of artisan, artist, engineer, doctor, nurse, or literally any other profession that requires skill for success and not a lack of self-control, conscience, and regard for others.And it is not even necessary to be a psychopath to get to the top of an organization. Pro claims it is important to "manipulate" people to do this. However:First, simply "manipulating" people is not necessarily psychopathic. "Cunning/manipulative" is just one trait on the Hare checklist. To be a psychopath, you must also exhibit other traits, like pathological lying. Second, manipulation is not necessary for moving up in an organization. I know this may come as a shock, but sometimes, people are promoted simply because they are good at what they do.Pro really has nothing to stand on.I am honestly baffled by Pro's posts. It seems like, for Pro, this debate is an outlet for some kind of jealous resentment of successful people. Or maybe a teenage disillusionment phase. Unfortunately, "I resent successful people" or "I have given up on the American dream" is a sentiment, not a debatable position.