Optimism vs. Pessimism

I will be going through Pro's arguments in order. 1. Optimism and Physical Health I have conceded that fact but that is irrelevant. It proves nothing in this debate. None of Pros evidence substantiates the reason of the correlation, in fact, one of Pro's MAIN articles with the study says that it is NOT necessarily due to being optimistic in of itself. This means that my speculation about the validity of these claims is just and therefore these claims should be disregarded, they prove nothing. Pro proceeds to attempt to combat my argument claiming that correlation does not equal causation by explaining that one study did take this into account. But, since Pro failed to show how, and their citation is blocked off by a pay wall. We could disregard this but I won't. How would a study rule out all other variables, they'd have to find the exact same person with the same experiences and etc. with the one thing being different is their optimistic or pessimist mindset. Of course I realize there is no way to do this so if Pro can prove that this study has shown that their is little to no possible substantial effect on the results then I will debate it. Pro then goes on to reiterate that optimistic people have less cortisol and of course cortisol is unhealthy. It still doesn't get passed the correlation does not equal causation argument. Pro then claims that people fight off infection when they are more optimistic, I would like to pull through my placebo and self fulfilling prophecy arguments and cross apply them here. These arguments work here because it is the same situation just medically instead of psychologically. Not only that but the source that Pro cites says nothing about optimism or one's immune system, it talks about stress level variation in college freshmen. Pro then tries to mention their financial success argument and that also proves the health argument because they can seek better health care. But didn't answer any of my arguments critiquing her citations, referenced here: "This whole section presumes that pessimists are all just extreme pessimists that hate themselves and everything around them. This is shown in the general negligence, because optimists have the ability to be just as radical. I could claim that optimists are less successful because they are OVERconfident and believe everything will just work out, naive right?" then my cherry picking argument that showed the fault to be upon their shoulders and how the article pro is referencing agrees with me. So pull those arguments through as Pro has, again, not answered them. Pro then criticizes my argument "Just because optimistic people are better at recovering from illness doesn't mean it is because of optimism." By saying I'm not denying it. That's is utter nonsense. My whole argument is that it is most likely due to other causes, Pro has not provided evidence that optimism itself causes these things, just that people with optimistic mindsets tend to be healthier. "There is a plethora of research confirming this logical conclusion." That entire quote is purely theoretical. The person saying that is just hypothesizing. If it were to be true, it would support MY argument. "people who were isolated and under stress faced greater risk of inuries that could cause bacterial infection." There reason for this is because I argued that things like this, physical well-being, were most likely due to other causes. This person depicted is a pessimist, but that doesn't mean pessimism caused the injury and ensuing infections, them being alone did that. Optimism and Mental Health "Extend my argument on mental health and the stress hormone; Con ignores/denies it yet it stands." Did pro even read my arguments? I argued that defensive pessimism is better because has a higher net decrease of anxiety and stress, thus lowering the cortisol levels more than, strategic optimism. My opening definitions stated that DP is more for people with high stress and anxiety while SO is the opposite. Pro says I rely on correlation does not equal causation argument and claims I have not discredited the sources. Again, did Pro even read my arguments? I went through, one by one, as they came up and showed why and how these sources were either not claiming that it is fact that optimism causes it and just correlated or the source had assumed it was fact from the citations they used. It is Pro that has ignored my arguments. I argued that pessimism doesn't cause a decline in mental health and that it is actually vice versa. It is a medical FACT, pessimism (usually radical pessimism) is a symptom of clinical depression and anxiety. [1] Symptom as defined by merriam webster: subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance; broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder. If pessimism caused mental health problems those problems would be a symptom of PESSIMISM not the other way around. Optimism and Success The first paragraph of this argument is flawed, extremely. Yes I claim that all of your evidence assumes that pessimists are all radical pessimists because that is the common misconception. If you read the article I reference from new statesmen, you would understand that there is a stigma surrounding pessimism that causes these things to happen. [2] Pro then claimed optimists are more likely to believe in their idea and their abilities to succeed... While not citing any evidence for this. This is EXACTLY the stigma I'm talking about. Pro is proving my point and arguments throughout their argumentation. I also pointed out how each article, if they did, do this as well. Please read the darn arguments I make! I didn't claim Pro was exaggerating I claimed that they were pitting radical pessimism vs. rational optimism. The entire opening of my debate was about how debating radical pessimism vs. radical optimism is useless because both are hugely flawed. THIS IS WHY I brought defensive pessimism and strategic optimism into the debate! I honestly don't think Pro read my arguments very well at all. The entire second paragraph of this section is pointing out how over confidence is not reasonable and therefor should be excluded. That was my entire point! I stated that to show exactly what pro was doing to pessimism!!! Pro tries to argue that they were not comparing radical pessimism to rational optimism by saying it was a fallacy and she was using the average pessimist and optimist. First, it is not a fallacy when I predicated the entire opening statement on excluding irrational thought on BOTH sides, to provide a more thoughtful and productive debate instead of a cat fight on which is more BS. Second, how can Pro claim to represent the average pessimist vs. the average optimist. Do they know how every pessimist and every optimist is? Can they read minds? Same questions can be asked of Pro's sources. But regardless, I opened up in round two explaining how we should debate defensive pessimism and strategic optimism. I didn't name the debate that because I didn't want to restrict thought critiquing either, if they can prove it to be more prevalent or more of a problem/solution. Nothing of what Pro has said has done this. So yes, my arguments critiquing Pro and their citations stand true. In the next paragraph pro, in the second sentence in parenthesis, makes another generalized statement on pessimism with no proof that this is actually what pessimists think. Not only did I answer this with two whole paragraphs (the last two in my previous round's arguments in point 3,) I also provided a counter interpretation to that website's interpretation of the data on workers. Pro has yet to adequately refute my arguments. The last paragraph of this section assumes pessimism is only focused on being negative. "When we are positive, this good stuff happens." Well that may be true but it is irrelevant. For the umpteenth time defensive pessimism isn't the societal misconception of pessimism! I explained both DP and SO in my opening statement. It was in fact, the crux of my arguments, and Pro has just dismissed it. Didn't even mention either term. Optimism and Happiness Pro says I'm obsessed with pointing out "alleged" and "unproven" fallacies when I explain in depth every time I think something is fallacial. Pro cannot simply dismiss that mass of argumentation by saying it is alleged and unproven. That is the whole point of this philosophical debate! It's a battle of IDEAS, not just facts. Of course facts can and do support ideas but this claim by Pro is ridiculous! Pro says their argument isn't circular but doesn't explain why. Thinking should be linear, most of the time, and therefore the ending statement in the line should not cause the starting statement. I pointed out that it does, therefore it is linear. Pro says it's explaining the thinking, and I agree, just that it is explaining it using a fallacy! PRO THEMSELF proved this by saying "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)." Pro literally linked the second thought to the first. Can't be more blatant than that. The rest of this section is embarrassing, just a variety of generalizations that don't address what I had asserted in my opening statement. She concludes it by saying I only scrutinized and didn't present an actual rebuttal. Well... If pro had actually addressed the whole part of my speech that my argument is predicated upon I may have had something to dispute! Arguments left unaddressed Sections 1,2,3 and 4 of my opening statement. Which is my whole side of the argument. I've actually turned some sources against pro and in my favor and pro just never addresses those either. Sources: [1] https://www.adaa.org... [2] http://www.newstatesman.com...