Psycopathy is not a pathology it is a privelege and a gift it is the American Dream

SummaryPro argues against his own position. His position is that something is required for the American dream, but then in R3, he says that thing does not exist. He loses for that alone.But even ignoring that fact, his position as stated in R1 is untenable. He never defines "psychopath", so I do that for him. My definition is not an obscure one like you see in semantics debates, but rather, the most commonly used definition in the field of psychiatry. If you accept my definition, then his position is false. If you reject my definition, then his position contains an undefined term, and therefore, it has no meaning, and therefore Pro loses.Detail"The traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy are the very traits required to live the American dream."This is Pro's thesis statement (aka "resolution"), with spelling corrected. Pro wins if and only if he persuades you that this statement is true. He has the entire burden of proof -- if I can present even one feasible way to live the American dream without being a psychopath (like being good at what you do), then I win. He tries to deny this in R3 when he says "I do not claim anywhere that psychopath traits are necessary for living the American dream," which is a direct contradiction of himself. Furthermore, if you let him change his position in R3, then there is no point in even deciding on a topic before the debate begins. He had plenty of time to think carefully about what he meant to say before he started this debate. It is his responsibility to defend what he said he would defend and you should hold him to that.He actually proves his own position false in R3 when he says "While [antisocial personality disorder] is treated as a clinical diagnosis, Psychopathy is not. Being used instead within forensic Psychiatry in profiling and in the decision of whether a person should be released from custodial sentences."That is, his position is that the traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy are required for the American dream, but he admits there is no such thing as a diagnosis of psychopathy. Something that does not exist cannot be required for living the American dream.Pro loses for that reason alone.But even if you show Pro mercy and pretend he said "psychopathic traits" instead of "traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy" (which you should not), there is still the question: what are "psychopathic traits"? Here is how that question has played out in this debate:R1Pro: Psychopathic traits are required for the American dream.Me: The Hare checklist lists the psychopathic traits, and those traits are not required for the American dream.R2Pro: "Psychopathic traits" are not the traits on the Hare checklist, but rather, the traits that distinguish psychopathic criminals from non-psychopathic criminals.Me: Then what are those traits?R3Pro: They are the traits that distinguish psychopathic criminals from non-psychopathic criminals.See the problem here? Pro's definition of "psychopathic traits" is circular. He never lists or describes the traits he is trying to debate about. He never gives us any picture of what makes a psychopathic criminal different from a non-psychopathic criminal (except that psychopaths are likelier to return to criminal behavior)*. So I had to do that work for him by posting the Hare checklist. He criticizes this checklist by saying things like "Psychopathy can never function as a clinical term when it makes essential reference to external data in its findings." But he offers no alternative definition or list of traits. You can either reject or accept my definition of "psychopathic traits" as "the traits on the Hare checklist" (which I list in R1).If you reject my definition, then you have no way to define "psychopathy" other than what Pro offers. There are two possibilities:1. "Psychopathy" is simply the quality of being likely to return to criminal behavior. In this case, I win easily. If you return to criminal behavior, then you are likely to return to prison. If you return to prison, then you are not living the American dream. (I realize Pro's claim is a bit more nuanced -- he claims that the same traits that cause criminals to return to crime somehow help non-criminals to succeed socioeconomically -- but he never describes those traits, so it is impossible for him to meet his burden of proof.)2. "Psychopathy" refers to nothing. Voting for Pro would be like voting for someone who says "Barack Obama is the prime minister of the US."If you accept my definition, then it is pretty easy to see why the traits of a psychopath are not required for living the American dream. I argue that if you are good at what you do, then you are very likely to live the American dream, and Pro does not disprove this. (In R3, he makes the statement in passing that "you can fail to prosper despite hard work, scrupulous honesty and talented entrepreneurship", but he does not explain why that can be true. For all we know, it is simply due to bad luck, and being a psychopath would not help you overcome bad luck.) Furthermore, Pro gives no reason why the lack of traits such as "failure to accept responsibility for own actions", "poor behavioral controls", and "promiscuous sexual behavior" would hold you back in the world.If you have read this far, then you are already showing Pro the mercy of pretending he said "psychopathic traits" instead of "the traits measured out in diagnosis of psychopathy". If you want to show him the additional mercy of pretending he said these traits are "a net positive for living the American dream" instead of "required for living the American dream" (which you should not), then he still loses. Psychopathic traits (defined as the traits on the Hare checklist) are a net negative. The simple reason is that psychopaths are much, much likelier to be in prison than non-psychopaths are (as Pro and I both agree), and if you are in prison, then you are not living the American dream. This outweighs any advantage you might get from traits like "glibness/superficial charm".* Here and there, Pro makes passing references to traits like "you want something really bad and are willing to do anything to get it", "manipulative skills that enable them to control others to meet their own needs", "the ability to see an opportunity and react to it", and "pushing the law to and for some beyond its limits". However, there is no reason to believe these traits are "psychopathic". One -- one -- of these matches a trait on the checklist, "Cunning/manipulative", but first of all, as I have proven, you can easily rise to the top of an organization simply by being good at what you do, and second of all, simply trying to win the game of office politics is not "psychopathic". A psychopath compulsively tries to manipulate people, along with compulsive lying, even when it is unnecessary. A psychopath lies to, and emotionally blackmails, even the people closest to him. That is the fastest way to lose friends, and when you lose friends, you are less likely to get people to support you.