To be Explained

My topic, (to be explained) is that whether someone says the glass is "half full" or "half empty" is not related to an entire mindset, although it may be related to parts of the mindset. What I mean by that exactly is that when someone says the glass is "half empty" or "half full", its does not necessarily mean that they are a negative or a positive person. Keep in mind that I am talking about the figure of speech, so don't try to find a rebuttal in the topic itself. If I put the words half full and half empty in different order throughout this topic, assume I am still talking about the same thing, because I am. The second part of the topic, pertaining to "parts of the mindset" basically means that the person evaluating the amount of water in the glass at the time may have said that it was "half full" or "half empty" because they had a good or bad day. This second part also means (in the context of this debate) that the glass being half full or empty could be related to most of someone's mindset, not all of it Although people are not normally evaluated on this question, this is the topic of my debate and it is what I'm staying with. Now that you know what I mean by the topic I have chosen, it's time to bring up my points.

When someone says whether the glass is half empty or half full, they could be keeping the truth from you in order to not be judged a certain way (or for any other reason you may come up with). This would mean that if they said the glass was half empty, you might accuse them of being pessimistic, whereas they could actually be thinking the glass is half full, which leads you to an optimistic conclusion. But you would still be assuming the pessimistic mindset, because you can't read that persons thoughts. But in this situation you are only ASSUMING that the glass comment (which is what I will refer to it as from now on) is related to pessimism and/or optimism. Besides, this person who is really optimistic on the inside (hiding the truth) may be pessimistic about some things, like jobs, projects, relationships, I could go one. This falls under the "parts of the mindset" concept.

Getting back to the last paragraph (sort of), your assumption of the relation of the glass comment to an entire mindset is, by all certainty, wrong. In a person's life, there will always be some pessimistic parts and some optimistic parts, regardless of what others say their entire mindset is. It's just natural. By the way, here's how pessimism and optimism are entire mind sets.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
(definition one)

http://dictionary.reference.com...
(definition one/three)

First my opponents resolution is quite hard to follow and does not really understand the metaphor "half-full/half-empty".

Half-full/half-empty is an expression, rhetorically used to indicate an optimistic/pessimistic outlook. But also used as a litmus test, to identify and individual as such.

And as my opponent pointed out whether the person is willing to think outside the box, responding to such half-full/half-empty.

What I am failing to understand in your rebuttal, is your lack of explanation. Why don't I understand this metaphor, and what indicates this?

I know the expression is used to indicate those outlooks, but that is not the topic. The topic is not that they are USED to indicate these outlooks, but that they do not relate to these entire outlooks.

I really don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence. I'm glad you have so short a rebuttal with pretty much no backed up points, it makes this much easier.

Now according to the comments, I'm pretty confusing. I suggest you read it twice, or at least try to see my thorough explanations. Sorry if you can't understand the paragraphs. So far I am the only one in this debate who has backed up their points with examples and explanations and has created thorough points. My opponent has not. It's a very short round one rebuttal that is under explained.

V
O
T
E

P
R
O

I apologize to those whom it may concern that my rebuttal was to short but really, there was nothing in my opponents first two paragraphs that I could rebut against. I failed to see any points. Fails to make an understandable case as the comments have implied.

So this time i will name my points and I will give you a reason to "VOTE CON"!

Point one: They are used only to indicate these outlooks; "man she only see's the glass half full." No my dear opponent they don't think she see's an actual glass of a drink half empty or half-full... The girl i refer to see's it her way and only her way not being open minded or being a pessimist. It is possible that my arguments have nothing to do with his topic, but I see no evidence backing it... Pro says his words are backing it. I wouldn't trust that. Maybe if there were references, criterion.

vote con
thank you!

This all seems to fall back on the point of my first argument being confusing. Sorry if it is, but once again, I suggest you read it again, or at least try to understand it. I don't really see how it isn't understandable.

As for your point, I know they're not referring to her as a glass with liquid in it, that's completely off topic. Sorry if I can't provide references, but it's hard to find references on these things.

So according to you (and partly me), we both have no convincing arguments. So why vote either of us? I still think the first argument of mine isn't really that confusing if you go over it again, though.

Vote whoever had the most convincing arguments, that's all I'm saying.

My opponents does not realize that people who are going to read these are not going to want to go over and over and over again due to lack of enthusiasm of this topic... this isn't even a topic just a theory