Optimism vs. Pessimism

People debate the same topic quite often, and typically utilize the same arguments from previous debates when they do. These arguments are my own. There is no standard that one must come up with entirely new arguments or wording each time they debate the same topic. Because this is common practice, and more importantly because Coveny will not be able to demonstrate that I have broken any rules - this irrelevant point must be dropped. Con should have a different rebuttal than my previous opponent, and therefore my next round will be entirely new. It is a non-issue. * * * To begin, Con argues that pessimism is no better or worse than optimism. Note that when Con accepted the debate in Round One, he said he would be arguing that pessimism is better than optimism. Now he's saying that pessimism is "no better" than optimism, which means he has already conceded this debate. * * * Con begins by saying "humans cannot afford to be optimistic. " He suggests that progressivism is not always optimal. However if progressivism is optimal and beneficial much of the time (and I argue it is) then optimism is useful, and I will prove it is more useful than pessimism. In the last round, I gave several examples of industries that have allowed humanity to flourish and thrive as a result of progressivism -- industries like medicine, engineering, exploring, etc. Con must prove that it is better for humanity to remain completely stagnant both in culture and technology. He won't be able to do so. Indeed Coveny's position is to propose that the evolution of our culture and society has been problematic to the point of being (overall) negative. To prove this, he writes that it is not fun to have a job. Admittedly most people do not enjoy going to work. Yet most people would not enjoy foraging for food most of their life from sun rise to sun down while battling the elements either. That's what our lives would be like if we did not evolve as a species. Many people today enjoy luxuries such as air conditioning, internet, cars and have their basic medical needs taken care of. Things like polio are no longer fatal. We have improved the quality of our lives thanks to new science and technology; my opponent will not be able to deny that. Optimism and hope that we could achieve better is precisely what encouraged these advancements. Science is not the only way that we have advanced as a society. Our culture has evolved over each generation as well. Just a few decades ago, in this progressive, western country (USA) an interracial couple could not get married. Having gay sex was considered a criminal act that was punishable by law. Women could not own property without their husband. Yet because people like Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream that things could change, he and people like him worked to create a better and more fair, just and overall good world. A pessimistic person could not have achieved this. A pessimistic person would be deterred at every turn. Not only would they quit at the first sign of distress, and not have the fortitude to persevere through adversity, but they likely wouldn't even try to change things for the better in the first place. Thus I have proven that evolution and progression is beneficial to society both in terms of tangible things (technology, etc. ) and in terms of culture. * * * Con writes that he will prove "when it comes to the most important things in life, expecting future outcomes to be negative is in your best interest. " Please note that the most important things in life are entirely subjective. To begin his argument, Coveny points out that things don't always work themselves out. For instance, a homeless person is not likely to miraculously find a home, so it's better they be pessimistic and go to a homeless shelter. Yet one could challenge whether going to a homeless shelter is the pessimistic choice in this scenario. Why go to a shelter if you have no will to live; no will to improve your current situation? A pessimist might assume that they couldn't find a shelter, that the shelter wouldn't have room, or find another excuse to remain stagnant and in desperation, rather than have faith that they could do something to improve a situation. Con notes in his second point that "you need a job if you like to eat. " Yet really his point here is that optimism can lead to unrealism, which is also his third point when he talks about people who buy lottery tickets. He notes that gamblers are optimistic that they'll win. However their optimism here is not logical (based on probability). I agree that BLIND optimism can promote naiveté. Blind optimism is to be optimistic without any reason. There is a difference between optimism and wishful thinking. There is also a difference between blind optimism and determined optimism. A blind optimist would notice a stray dog, and assume that someone would take care of it. A determined optimist would notice a stray dog, and assume that someone would take care of it because they would work to find it a new home. A pessimist would assume that nobody wants the dog (or that the dog would die anyway) and leave it to fend for itself. In the last round, I wrote that being optimistic doesn't mean being careless and taking profound risks. It means having the audacity of hope to take reasonable risks in the first place. Thus Con's examples of failed business ventures have already been addressed. Next, Con writes that optimism is bad because it encourages repeat bad behavior. In other words, people will keep making the same bad choices because they have faith that things will change. In his fifth point, Coveny notes that this allows others to take advantage of vulnerable (optimistic) people. Yet we must look at the examples he provided through the correct scope of this debate. Con describes a scenario where someone stayed in an abusive relationship, or let people take advantage of them to show that optimism leads to people being doormats. Yet a pessimistic person is more likely to stay in bad situations according to science. Pessimism leads to frustration, anger, discouragement, feelings of helplessness, feeling of hopelessness, fear, anxiety and low self-esteem [1]. Low self-esteem is the reason that people stay in situations where they are being exploited or undervalued. According to the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, "a gloomy viewpoint, an inclination to focus on the negative part and exaggerate its significance, low self-esteem as well as a pessimistic view on what the future holds are interlinked with neurophysiological processes in the right-hemisphere (RH). The RH mediation of a watchful and inhibitive mode weaves a sense of insecurity that generates and supports pessimistic thought patterns" [2]. Thus the characteristics that compel one toward harmful relationships are associated with pessimism, not optimism. I explained in the last round why optimists have better, healthier relationships than pessimists. Optimists tend to draw stronger and more supportive social circles, per my aforementioned sources and explanation. In close relationships, optimism predicts enhanced satisfaction and better cooperative problem-solving [3]. The American Psychological Association notes that individuals who are the happiest overall, and who have a greater ability of highlighting the most positive attributes of their marriage or relationship are optimists [4]. Yet going back to the idea that an optimist would endure a bad relationship, we can look at it from the perspective than an optimist believes they deserve more. An optimist has the confidence and self-esteem to leave a bad situation for a better one. I've proven that pessimism is linked to low self-esteem, which is the primary reason one does not leave a bad relationship according to psychologists [5]. We have no reason to assume that a pessimist would be in better company than optimists. Con hasn't proven as much, and I provided evidence to the contrary. * * *ConclusionIn conclusion of this round, it's obvious that our survival and well-being require a balance between optimism and pessimism. Undue pessimism makes life miserable, and excessive optimism can lead to dangerously risky behaviors. We know that life demands moderation, and one state is more appropriate in a given scenario than another. However in this debate, we're having a philosophical discussion about which state is overall preferable - which state promotes the most good by itself. I have proven that optimism is better at promoting happy and healthy relationships; that it's better at encouraging society to progress in various ways; and that the world is an overall better place when people have hope compared to despair. * * *Sources[1] . http://mindrenewal.us...[2] . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] . http://sites.psu.edu...[5] . https://www.psychologytoday.com...