Liberals ought to be more optimistic about opportunities for success in the U.S.

"Regardless of what is responsible for the formation of one's attitude, it does not change my point that attitudes can be changed with the proper influence." -Yes, attitudes can change, "with the proper influence," an enormous qualifier in this context. My point is that if the factors that are responsible for an individual's attitude being negative in the first place continue, and "the proper influence" is not provided, there is no reason to expect change from that person. Also, "the proper influence" is quite a vague expression. "I think most would take this claim for granted based on our own personal experiences in a variety of areas (career, sports, dating, etc.) that there is a strong correlation between positive thinking and success." -I counter that the correlation you speak of is no greater than that of pessimism and failure. If a person *thinks* they are going to win all of the time, they are bound to be correct at least some of the time. Conversely, if a person thinks that they will lose all of the time, they are bound to be correct at least some of the time. My overall idea is that a person can be either an optimist or a pessimist, and, excluding the extremes self-destructiveness or an air of complete superiority, a person's attitude does not conclusively influence the outcome of a given event. Regardless of what they *think* the decision is in the end out of their hands. "With this statement you're basically saying that if a person walks into a job interview beaming of confidence and optimism because he thinks he will succeed, he will not (in most cases) have an advantage over one who shows signs of pessimism and the resulting lack of confidence. I (and I'm sure most readers) would strongly disagree." -As I understand it, optimism and pessimism are products of our inner-self and not immediately recognizable (outside of the extremes mentioned above) to others, especially to strangers meeting for the first time at a job interview. When you speak of pessimism in this sense, it sounds more like self-sabotage, which is neither a product of, nor exclusive to, nor synonymous with, pessimism. Further, confidence is not the handmaiden of optimism. It is completely possible for the pessimist to be confident - his confidence is simply that he will not win, regardless of any other factors, including the fact that he may be the preferred candidate and end up succeeding. "Confidence" would be defined as "self-assurrance" in this context (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Ed.) and self-assurance can swing equally in either direction. "...[Y]ou have offered no evidence to support your claim that there is no relationship between the way one thinks and the way he performs." -I never said there was no relationship between these things. My claim is that there is no relationship between what a person internally *thinks* will happen and the actual outcome. I can be as optimistic as I want to about any number of things, but that doesn't mean that any of them are ever going to happen. On the other hand, I can be as pessimistic as I want about a number of things, but it doesn't mean that any of them will not happen. My own forecast for outcomes of events per my internal monologue does not influence those events one way or the other. It simply sounds like wishful thinking; see also my point above on optimism bias. "Your 1st round claim that "In the game of life, a man can only lose so many hands before he begins to think that losing is the natural consequence of his playing" suggest the relationship between optimism (or lack of) and endurance." -Not so. I didn't say he would quit playing from losing multiple times, only that he would eventually begin to expect to lose. Even if perseverance were a product of optimism, which it is not (the "pessimistic liberals" you describe are still out there, *trying* to succeed, persevering in the face of adversity - whether they triumph or not is a different matter, still unrelated to how long they endure or persevere), it still has no necessary connection to whatever result is eventually reached. "I am going to drill for oil on this acre of land until I find it, which I will do," said the tycoon. He then proceeded to drill that acre for the rest of his life - unfortunately to no avail. He was optimistic and persevered, but did not succeed. "Pessimistic and realistic attitudes are not mutually exclusive of one another. In other words, if you are correct that liberals are realistic, it does not disqualify them from being pessimistic. Pessimism is the quality of having a negative expectation of outcome, regardless of whether said expectation is a realistic one." -You mistake my meaning. I am presenting "realism" as a holistic way of viewing things clearly, rationally, and without optimistic or pessimistic bias, as opposed to a dualistic optimistic/pessimistic outlook where realism is a kind of middle-ground with overlap from both o. and p. Instead of saying "the glass is half-full" or "the glass is half-empty," is it not better to say "There is [X] amount of liquid in the glass"? Differently, if the realistic expectation is indeed negative, would what you call pessimism not be justified? "In closing, I believe my argument is anchored by two important points which my opponent has not adequately disputed: 1) Liberals are typically pessimistic in their attitudes toward opportunities for success in the U.S. 2) An attitude of pessimism is typically disadvantageous in summoning the courage, confidence and endurance required to make success most likely." -Number 1 was not so much a point as an assertion of opinion: "I am also claiming that liberals tend to be more pessimistic, strictly by my own observations than do most others." I think I did dispute your point adequately - 1) by claiming that liberals are not pessimistic but instead realistic and 2) you simply asserted this and let it be, with no evidence to support it except your "own observations." The burden of proof was on you to prove this claim, and you did not do that. Unless you want to allow unsupported assertions of personal observation to be admissible as evidence, in which case I still simply claim that liberals are not pessimists but realists, from my own observations and experience. As I am actually a "liberal," my observation should carry at least as much, if not more, weight than yours. Number 2: A person can be a pessimist and still be courageous, confident, and enduring - possibly even more so than the optimist if the reasons for his being a pessimist in the first place are truly justified, per my arguments in the preceding rounds. HandsOff wants to ignore the reasons for one's "attitude;" this simply cannot be done in an argument such as this, as one's previous and current social/economic standing have more to do with chances for success than either pessimism or optimism. In any case, I do not see where HandsOff has proven that "liberals ought to be more optimistic about opportunities for success in the U.S.," as he 1) did not prove that liberals are indeed pessimistic, and 2) did not conclusively show that even *if* they are pessimistic that there is any good reason, beyond being positive for the sake of being positive, why they ought to change their outlook. Britt