Optimism vs. Pessimism

IntroductionI have negated Coveny's "poor conduct" argument by highlighting the fact that (a) I have not broken any rules -- which he admits, (b) this practice is standard, (c) it has not been deemed poor conduct or problematic by the community, and finally (d) the integrity of the debate is not threatened: the arguments are my own, and Con's original rebuttal to Round One means the rest of the debate is entirely new. This argument will be dropped by the audience.Con also suggests I plagiarized a single line from a source that I highlighted as one I used in the last round. I think the audience can tell he is looking for a conduct point that is not warranted. * * *Coveny accepted this debate stating that he would argue pessimism was BETTER than optimism, which he said in Round One. That is his burden in this debate. We are not arguing that optimism and pessimism are equal. We are each trying to make a case for why one is independently preferable to the other by its own sake, even though we acknowledge that both perspectives have utility. * * * Coveny retracted his promise to prove that pessimism was better. He claims that he intends to argue pessimism is better for survival, even though he acknowledges optimism as "equally" useful. Note this distinction was never clarified in the opening round, it was never clarified in the acceptance round, and it was not made clear in Con's opening argument that survival was the premise for his viewpoint. It seems Con accepts that optimism helps societies to flourish and thrive, so he's implying that we couldn't live at all without pessimism. He writes "optimism makes you dead" and notes that he has never met an optimistic dead person. But is it true that optimism leads to death?I've spent two rounds highlighting how optimism improves one's physical, mental and emotional heath. I also pointed out that optimists thwart disease, and have been measured to live longer than pessimists. Con has not challenged a single one of these claims. Therefore optimism promotes survival and life longevity better than pessimism, so Con defeats his own argument here. * * *Coveny writes, "All I need to do is prove that happiness, success, and health could be attributed to something other than optimism, and her argument falls apart."That is painfully wrong.Indeed we can see how poor this logic is by using this standard and applying it to his very own argument. If I can prove that survival can be attributed to anything other than pessimism, his argument would allegedly fall apart. So allow me to do that now. I've already explained that optimism promotes survival. But we also know that survival is sustained by food, water and shelter [1]. An optimistic or neutral person with these things could still survive, thereby Con's argument would be entirely negated if we utilize his standard. * * * In his "Broken Chain" argument, Con suggests that I did not prove how optimism leads to better health and happiness. That is patently false. Forcing me to copy and paste what was already written is arguably an abusive waste of my character space. Not only did I provide a sufficient explanation, but I linked to multiple scholarly sources with medical, empirically backed data.* The audience can see the arguments plainly underneath each underlined heading (Round Two). * * * Con states that optimists are only optimistic because they've already been successful, which he did not prove at all. People who fail and who have miserable lots in life can still choose to be optimistic. I gave examples of this in previous rounds, i.e. people who did not make a sports team but decide to try out again, or people who are sick and having their optimism promote better health outcomes. I also pointed out that people who change the world (Martin Luther King Jr.) often face oppression, adversity and set backs, but their optimism allows them to persevere through. Thus Con's point that you need success to be optimistic is not at all true.* * *Next Con argues that money can buy you health and happiness. He says that I have not explained why it's true we should assume optimistic people are more successful. Ironically, he highlights my sentence where I point out that I have "therefore" explained this assumption is true. I reached the "therefore" point after noting optimism is required in order to take on a new business venture. Con knows this; he is optimistic that his future website will be a success, despite the pessimism of others. If he were a pessimistic person, he would not be pursuing this opportunity in the first place.I also pointed out that pessimists are deterred more easily; optimists deal better with set backs. In an optimist's mind, hurdles "are simply problems that need to be solved. Therefore, instead of complaining or blaming, they go to work trying to figure out why things happened" and work to fix it [2]. The Huffington Post notes that optimism helps people succeed in business because they are more resilient and positive [3]. Inc business magazine notes that companies run by optimists are healthier; they do not dwell on problems, but work toward opportunities [4]. Peer reviewed research after an in depth study at the University of Pennsylvania posits, "Our data support the claim that positive leadership is correlated with employee engagement and performance, and further extends the importance of optimism in the workplace" [5]. They also found that optimists are more successful than equally talented pessimists in business, education, sports and politics [6].Moreover, according to Harvard Business Review, optimists are better at finding new jobs [7]. Job seekers who think positively will interview more effectively, receive higher salaries, and enjoy more career options [8]. Based on these and my aforementioned findings, I have thoroughly explained why optimistic people are more financially secure with better job prospects. Therefore, Con cannot say I haven't explained this point sufficiently. * * *I would like to repeat that life requires a balance between optimism and pessimism, which my opponent and I both admit. A new study by organizational psychology researchers finds "that for the best (and happiest) results, you want to embrace a hybrid approach and be a 'realistic optimist,' someone who maintains a positive outlook, but also pays close attention to potential downsides" [9]. The reason you shouldn't be a realistic pessimist, however, is because that would promote stagnation. My opponent has ignored all of my points about stagnation from the last round. He failed to explain one iota how pessimism leads to progression of any kind. You can be a realist and make wise decisions, but seeing things in an optimal way is what helps you create a better situation.* * * Instead of dealing with this incredibly significant argument, Con focuses on the "trickery" of my words. He wants to reiterate that this debate "is about what you expect to happen in the future, nothing more." Of course this completely dismantles his point about survival, and the ridiculous notion that only pessimists could survive. If we are simply debating the merit of believing there will be good or bad in the future, then Con MUST address my point about progression (medicinal, technological, cultural, etc.) and yet he hasn't and it's too late for him to do so. Remember: I pointed out that people who fought for civil rights et. all would not have been motivated to do so if they did not believe beneficial change was possible for the future. That same logic applies to scientists and doctors looking to cure disease and find other advancements. Again Con has failed to explain how a pessimistic attitude would make any of these things possible, and this is one of my strongest arguments in the debate which Coveny has dropped. * * *Shockingly, Con provides a closing argument that proves my case.In describing a scenario in which a painter perseveres through adversity, he writes, "Understanding that you will fail helps you to keep from getting jaded." In other words, Con advocates that one should have a positive outlook and recognize they will eventually overcome their deficits. That is an OPTIMISTIC perspective! In fact, I used a similar example previously when I noted an optimistic person is one who did not make the cut of a sports team, yet decided to practice and try out again. That is no different than a painter who is optimistic they will improve and doesn't give up. I have spent a good deal of time articulating examples of how optimism compels one to move forward rather than remain stagnant. It is incredible that Con would use an optimistic attitude in defense of pessimism. * * *ConclusionIn this debate, I have explained why optimistic people are happier, healthier, more driven, more likely to overcome obstacles, more likely to create progression in society, and live overall better lives than pessimists. Businesses, the economy and individuals are more successful overall when there is optimism. I've also explained that optimism doesn't necessarily mean naiveté. I acknowledged the utility of pessimism and realism, and noted that balance is required along with the need for determined optimism. However I argued that optimism is independently stronger than pessimism. Con conceded that pessimism is NOT better than optimism (he says they're equal, undermining his own position in this debate). Assuming one looked at the facts objectively, having an optimistic outlook would promote better results if the data indicated all else being equal. In other words, if there was a 50/50 chance at something failing or succeeding, the mindset that something or someone would be successful is the only thing that can create beneficial change.* SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...