Optimism vs. Pessimism

Optimism and Physical Health (A) I agree with this point, I even stated so in my last argument. What I argued is that this benefit is FAR outweighed by the detriments. She uses this one argument, the only one I that stands up to the correlation argument (did I even use that argument against this?), to state all of her arguments stand up to it. That's just factually incorrect. She then draws the conclusion that optimism is better because it lowers cortisol and they are generally happier. I argued that DP has a larger NET BENEFIT because pessimists usually have higher stress and DP helps them lower it to manageable levels so if optimists have lower stress and us SO to lower it to manageable levels, DP does more. Logical right? She says I have to download the paper, but as I said it is blocked by a pay wall. I can't because I can't afford to buy a paper that won't help me further my education or career. (B) She says she answers my cherry picking argument then quotes me where the word cherry picking isn't even in it.. What? Here's my cherry picking argument Con has cherry picked this argument. Here is the whole paragraph: "People who are concerned with potential downfalls in a project, for example, tend to handle criticism much better than optimists. Pessimists are always looking to identify the holes or mistakes in a line of thinking so that they can become better. But optimists might fare better in situations where persistence and not giving up, even in the face of extreme adversity, may take them farther than people who focus only on what will go wrong, blocking them from their goal." This article is agreeing with my argument! I stated that DP is concerned with preventing potential pitfalls and the article, eerily may I add, almost word for word states that. Optimists do better in the face of extreme adversity because so often extreme adversity is not self-caused and not predictable, or else pessimists would be better in those situations as well. Then Pro has the gall to accuse me of abusive conduct when she is the one mistaken AND opened a separate page just to hold the citations she ran out of room for. I can't understand this anymore. Oh, and by the way pro, I've wasted many more characters with this even though I explicitly pointed it out previously, thanks for slandering me by calling me a liar though! Just noticed she did the same in this round. What a hypocrite. (C) "I've explained that optimism leads to better, stronger social circles..." No. Pro has explained there is a correlation, and not only have I called Pro out on this I explained that even if it weren't just correlation, I steered the debate in the direction of defensive pessimism vs. strategic optimism. Literally the first two sentences of my opening statement. Just gross negligence by Pro's part at this point. (D) Pro tries to extend an advantage to an argument I have pointed out was flawed and therefore should be discarded. In my first response I went into detail on EVERY CITATION, and explained why Pro's points were presuming the studies/experiments were claiming facts or how those studies/experiments were trying to claim a fact that wasn't supported in the evidence they themselves put forth. I mean, for god's sake, one of the main articles pro uses says that it isn't necessarily just due to optimism. I've stated this multiple times. The only argument pro puts towards these arguments is "My opponent relies on the "correlation does not equal causation" argument, though I have explained (and shown research not discredited by Con) that optimism is explicitly related to physical and mental health through both correlation AND causation." Which is a "blatant lie," to use pro's words about me, because that specific argument she went on to quote is her disputing my metaphor about how if I compared to radical optimism to rational pessimism it would be incorrect and fallacial. This isn't even the correlation argument, this is another logical fallacy argument. Another instance of negligence by my opponent. "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." Where did I say this. I stated that they may be alone more often because of other mental health issues that pessimism is a symptom of, therefore meaning THOSE mental health issues are the fault not pessimism. Oh look, another "blatant lie." Oh look, more negligence by my opponent. (E) Pro claims the "on balance" argument again and never disputed my critique of it saying pro can't possibly have a record of all the pessimistic and optimistic people and the details of their life, health, and social well-being. Pro is just claiming random crap now. She then claims I haven't put forth any arguments how pessimism is better. Did Pro read my opening statement? Honestly. More negligence. "That's because pessimism has been repeatedly observed to be detrimental to one's health." No citation, because no study has shown that RATIONAL, REASONABLE, and LOGICAL pessimism is bad for one's health. Of course hating yourself and thinking you can't do anything is bad, but I disregarded both extremes of the spectrum in my opening statement arguing that it wouldn't be beneficial. I brought this up in my last speech as well, further explaining it. Pro has not answered it. Negligence again! Optimism and Mental health (A) Oh my god. Pro actually used the term "defensive pessimism." Maybe pro will start debating about more stimulating topics and areas that aren't cut and dry!!! Nope. She claims I didn't prove that pessimistic people have less cortisol. Which is true, but that wasn't my argument in the first place. I argued there was a higher net decrease with DP. See my other mention earlier in this round and the last round. (B) Lmao, Pro claims that "foreseeing and exaggerating potential problems" can't possibly reduce anxiety. I never f**king claimed this. This is just ridiculous at this point. I apologize for my nonprofessional conduct in this round but Pro has just been butchering and lying about what I've said. I claimed that defensive pessimism, which is foreseeing LIKELY and AVOIDABLE, pitfalls reduces anxiety. Just read the definition I posted in my opening statement and the arguments proceeding it. There's no exaggerating, there is just saying, "Hey this might cause this, so let's not do it exactly like that." This happens in politics all the time! (C) " Con argues that optimism causes a decline in mental health." What? When did I claim this? Jesus christ, I'm not religious but pro needs jesus or something. (D) Pro quotes me saying: "It is a medical FACT, pessimism (usually radical pessimism) is a symptom of clinical depression and anxiety." Then pro says that it shows the correlation. First off, I did not show the same correlation, pro is claiming that pessimism causes mental health problems while I argued that it was the other way around. Secondly, if it were true that I acknowledged there is a correlation between pessimism and mental health meaning pessimism causes mental health problems that would be it. Just a correlation, CORRELATION PROVES NOTHING. Did you know 100% of murderers drank water in the past 24 of killing? Therefore, water creates murderers! No. It doesn't. Optimism and Success (A) Pro claims " By DEFINITION, optimists tend to be hopeful and confident about the future or the success of something," when her citation doesn't say that. I s**t you not, it doesn't even try to make that claim. It's just google's default definition. And then says pessimists presume the worst will happen. Google's definition says it SEES the worst parts of situations. You know, the stuff that actually happened or tends to happen. What she describes is what I called being cynical. (B) Pro claims that defensive pessimism isn't the only form of pessimism as if this disproves my argument. The point of me narrowing the debate, as I explained in the last god d**m round, was to cut out all the BS about self hating radical pessimists and over-confident and naive radical optimists. Because I didn't think that was going to be productive. I was right, this debate has done NOTHING. Well, it has done something. Proven my point that optimism has become a cult like idea that people assume is just inherently better. Pro uses a 50/50 chance analogy but doesn't express pessimism accurately at all, she again expresses either radical pessimism or cynicalism. I showed this in my first two rounds arguing that defensive pessimists see reasonable and avoidable downfalls of something. If you provide a situation that has no downfalls whatsoever, which I did (see my crane arcade game argument), of course a pessimist would take the chance. (C) She says my bell curve argument is unproven. No f**king s**t Pro. No f**king s**t. That is the point of philosophical discussion. Nothing is set in stone, everything is debatable. I'd like to point out this is the first time pro has addressed this point. 3 speeches later. (D) Pro says pessimists are less likely to begin new projects but I've shown how that is radical pessimism and shouldn't be categorized under DP. She claims optimists are better at dealing with setbacks and problem solving, while I addressed this before and has gone unanswered. Conclusion Pro is arguing "on balance" or on average. This is a horrible stance because as I've stated probably hundreds of times now that both extremes are flawed. Pro doesn't acknowledge most of my arguments or just grossly misrepresents them, including saying I claimed things when I haven't. The misconduct and general incompetence by Pro in this debate has destroyed any hopes of this becoming a productive experience. Philosophical debate is predicated upon no evidence, or very little evidence. So bringing articles that suggest there MIGHT be a problem is just inherently flawed. Answer my arguments ffs.