Optimism vs. Pessimism

== Optimism and Physical Health == (A) By choosing to focus on the positive and not worry about potential negatives, optimistic people have less stress. Stress produces the harmful chemical cortisol. Cortisol has significantly detrimental health effects. Con says this doesn't bypass the "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument which I have repeatedly proven to be false. Here, we can see that optimism directly leads to less stress, and therefore reduced risk of health problems caused by stress. Thus by combatting stress, optimism is the CAUSE of better health. By the way - Con says my source from last round doesn't prove this claim, but it does. He has to download the paper I linked in source 2. It shows a study addressing the effects of a naturally occurring stressor on components of the immune system by directly measuring and comparing levels of cortisol. (B) Con claims that I didn't answer his point on cherry picking ("I could claim that optimists are less successful because they are OVERconfident and believe everything will just work out"). That is completely false -- I addressed it twice already in this debate. Here was my response: "Next Con argues that optimism can hurt people via over-confidence, and ultimately lead to their failure or demise. Yet I explicitly addressed this suggestion already last round, when I noted that optimism doesn't mean being careless and taking profound risks. Instead it means valuing and factoring hope and positivity into the cost/benefit analysis."It is abusive conduct for my opponent to blatantly lie and force me to waste character space copy and pasting. (C) I've explained that optimism leads to better, stronger social circles, and there is research to back my claim. In their study of The Role of Optimism in Social Network Development, psychologists measured through peer reviewed research how and why optimists tend to befriend and maintain more significant relationships than pessimists [1]. Having a strong support network has proven to lead to better health [2]. This is a second way in which optimism (through stronger social circles) CAUSES better health. (D) Moreover, in the last round I showed that evolution details why socialization leads to better health via strengthening one's immune system. Con claims this may be virtue of the placebo or "self fulfilling prophecy." That is incorrect; this argument is explicitly rooted in biology. However Con states the argument is just hypothetical, which according to evolution is unabashedly false. Exposure to pathogens helps strengthen the immune system [3] which is one reason why we have vaccines. Optimists are more outgoing and surrounded by more people (see point B). So optimism (through increased socialization) CAUSES better health by fortifying defense against bacteria, virus and disease. Con argues that if pessimistic people simply stayed recluse, perhaps they wouldn't be exposed to such harm. So here Con admits that pessimists are surrounded by less people (therefore having less and fewer opportunities to solidify relationships or pursue success). I can acknowledge that exposure to less people = less chance for illness, but that doesn't negate the benefit of exposure, nor does it prove being recluse is the preferable option. (E) I explained how optimism contributes toward financial success. Optimistic people do better on job interviews and are richer on balance. Optimism leads to risk taking and increased performance, which is one reason optimists make more money. Thus optimism leads to better health and healthcare. This is yet another CAUSE of optimism contributing to better health. I have repeatedly shown that optimism causes better health. Meanwhile, my opponent has not shown how pessimism affects one's health at all. That's because pessimism has been repeatedly observed to be detrimental to one's health. == Optimism and Mental Health == (A) Con argues that defensive pessimism is preferable to optimism, because it leads to less cortisol and less stress. Here we can see that Con concedes the health benefits of having less cortisol. However Con did NOT prove that pessimistic people have less cortisol. Nowhere did he cite a source proving that claim -- because that claim is false. Meanwhile I have provided many sources proving optimists have less cortisol and less stress, and here are two more [4, 5]. (B) Despite the data on cortisol, Con claims pessimism reduces anxiety because it allows one to evaluate all the potential pitfalls that can reasonably be addressed. This seems illogical. If one is looking for reasons to be stressed by foreseeing and exaggerating potential problems, they are more likely to exhibit anxiety [6]. Anxiety is a natural response to presuming something bad will happen. While defensive pessimism surely has its useful purpose, and can help battle anxiety for sure - optimism in general is better than pessimism in general.(C) Con argues that optimism causes a decline in mental health. My opponent has failed to cite a single source proving this misguided claim. On the other hand, I have provided explanations and sourced citations detailing why optimism leads to better mental health. (D) My opponent notes "It is a medical FACT, pessimism (usually radical pessimism) is a symptom of clinical depression and anxiety." Thus he highlights the correlation between pessimism and terrible mental health. In the last round 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. Con did not challenge this research, and he failed to discredit the link between optimism and positive mental health. == Optimism and Success == (A) My opponent says, "Pro then claimed optimists are more likely to believe in their idea and their abilities to succeed... while not citing any evidence for this." I didn't cite evidence because none is required. By DEFINITION, optimists tend to be hopeful and confident about the future or the success of something [8]. That is the literal definition of the word. By definition, pessimists presume the worst will happen [9]. Thus optimists are more likely to believe in their ideas and ability to succeed. Optimists assume the best, pessimists presume the worst. My point stands. (B) Con complains about generalizations (the stigma) of pessimists while he continues to generalize optimists. Pure hypocrisy. While there are pros and cons to both optimism and pessimism, we are debating the generalizations of both. My opponent asks how we can debate generalizations by sarcastically asking if I can read minds. No, I can't, and he can't either -- does that mean all of his criticisms are invalid? We are literally debating the norm of optimism vs. the norm of pessimism; not the specific details of every situation and every individual. (C) Con still has not proven that optimists face less problems OR that they do not consider them beforehand.(D) Con did not challenge my contention on positive attitudes --> greater success (not only the swimmer example but the executive). (E) Con did not address Shawn Achor's research. == Optimism and Happiness ==(A) I argued that Con name drops fallacies without proving them. He says I didn't explain how my logic was not fallacious - even though I did not present statements in the form of syllogism. I explained "The first sentence highlights that optimism leads to contentment, and the second shows it leads to a more positive assessment of one's life (hence why it leads to contentment)." I outlined how these comments were complimentary, not circular. They did not have to prove each other - they only both have to be true in order to be useful to my point. You'll notice that Con has ignored my point, and not proven either of those claims linking optimism and gratitude/happiness to be false.(B) I explained that optimistic people are in the habit of being thankful, and gratitude causes happiness. My opponent has ignored this contention multiple times. (C) Similarly, Con ignored that optimistic people laugh more and are more fun to be around. I've presented reasoning and sources.== Rebuttal == (A) Con argued that everyone uses defensive pessimism. That may be true, but doesn't prove pessimism is preferable to optimism. (B) Con claims that pessimism is more pragmatic. He refers to defensive pessimism, which of course is not the only type pf pessimism. Nonetheless, pessimism presumes negativity whereas optimism presumes positivity. That doesn't mean a pessimist is more pragmatic; it simply shows a difference of perspective. For example, suppose one had a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery. An optimist would believe they'd win and a pessimist would believe they'd lose. However neither attitude affects the outcome in that scenario, thus pessimism is not more pragmatic - just more negative. (C) On pragmatism, Con writes "When we assess the usefulness of DP and SO levels on a curve we can see that DP is more useful more often." This remains unproven. He says "I am essentially arguing that anxious and well prepared is much better than confident and ill prepared." Thus Con once again claims optimism is naive, which is a (hypocritical) generalization. (D) My opponent says, "DP is what gets things done while SO dismisses what might happen." But I've argued in my round why pessimists are less likely to begin new projects, and this point stands. Optimists are also better at dealing with set backs and problem solving [10]. == Conclusion ==My opponent claims that defensive pessimism has more benefits than optimism. However throughout this debate, I've highlighted that on balance, optimism yields more benefits in terms of health, happiness, success, relationships and well being than pessimism. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...