Resolved: If a person could relive their life, it would be fine to be smart yet loathed

hey look here, I'm already there, I'm smart, I'm loathed --well, except family, old gran mama won't mind if I'm a bit too cold--, what's the problem exactly? You get used to the sneers and to the people laughing at you. Here's the thing, emotional relationships aren't the only thing you need to get by in life, and it's not completely impossible to change people's mind. Smart people, aren't they productive to society? Geniuses, they are said to revolutionize the world, to come up with incredible ideas, solve major problems. To sacrifice yourself for the wellbeing of others, isn't that the virtue of man? I get it, you don't want people to dislike you. But disliked is the way of life, people! Everyone's gonna have people who dislike them, whether on the surface or depth. And speaking of which, just because they dislike you doesn't mean they won't act nice. Be the top dog, be the leader! Be the one that has those underdog followers. You've already lived your usual life. Perhaps you were already well liked. But change isn't always a bad thing. Most people are average. Most people can't seem to do much in life. Yes, you're comfortable, you're good, but didn't you wish you were something more? This is your chance. Prove to the world that you don't need validation, you already had it this life. You can choose who to love still, you can eventually sway people over. Loathing is only temporary, only a state of mindset. It may influence action, but when you're incredibly intelligent, does that really matter? You already know you are incredible. Your family still has to accept you for who you are. And for me, that's all that matters.

(This debate topic is inspired by this video, so if you know Mandarin you can check it out)

Well, let's get one thing clear: What is credit, really? For the sake of this argument, I will use this definition and any other definition will be deemed false. Pro used zero definition regarding this term and when I talk "credit" this, "credit" that, it means this. Any attempt of proving that the definition is wrong will be regarded as a useless point.

According to the definition, Credit is determined by attribute and value: If you simply do this better than everyone else, you got more credit especially within that field. It is bare common sense that the winner of a competition is obviously of more credit than the guy who came in last unless the latter did something that surpasses the greatness of the winner's glory.

Credit is based on trust: If I have credit, people can trust me to do something. Here are other examples of good credit.

My opponent literally had a resume. He should be familiar with what credit is and what it does. We know what credit is and now it is to compare two individuals. Remember: If people are more likely to rely on you, you have better credit.

Credit is very important. It literally runs the world. Remember: Money is credit and money runs all trades within this society, so credit literally runs the world. This is on top where there are more complicated and intricate human feelings, which is also based on credit within.

So here we have two individuals: A, the guy who is smart but is hated; and B, the guy that isn't so intelligent but is trusted by the people. Obviously, Pro has to argue either than credit is not important or that A is the better choice out of two.

A is the guy that you will probably see in a supervillain comic issue. The guy who thinks he is so smart(and probably is), but everyone hates him. He probably started High school in 12 and aced his SAT in 15, even achieving a Ph.D. in 20. Who are examples of the A personality? Unabomber, the anarcho-primitivist terrorist who bombs airports and university parking lots, despite being offered into a very good college in just 16 and solving problems faster than everyone. Note: Said being must be generally disliked, not just non-liked. Another example is Leonardo Notarbartolo, who stole hundreds of millions of worth of diamonds and was smart enough to even break in the vault. These people are not just being unpopular, but being a security hazard. Pro stated that you must be hated(Not just non-liked!!) by lots of people to satisfy the criteria for personality number A on this sense, so if you are just being harmless like Tesla(Just not that popular, but he is overall still just a crazy but non-bad person for the exploration of the scientific fields), you probably wouldn't be hated like the exact Personality A.

Pro pointed out that one can remove its loathe, but if he is no longer loathed because of his redemption, so you are No longer living a smart yet loathed life anymore. This is what happened to Galileo: The guy who proved that the earth rotates the sun and that everything falls the constant speed. His experiments got rid of his loathe because people started to realize that he is talking sense all along. If you are living a smart, loathed life, you must be so immoral that you are never understood. Serial killers and public hazards fulfill said criteria, and scientists don't. Being unpopular does not equate to being hated by most. Pro mentioned "Smart people are generally useful", but not if they never trusted anyone because he is so loathed that he is living as Pro said. Person A will probably live like a criminal for the rest of his life if he lived a life smart and loathed.

Plus, as I mentioned that credit is important in this society, person A wouldn't be a lot credited at all. Remember: If I prove that B is more credited than A, it means B is more functional in society, hence better. If A is disliked by much, then he would lose credit more than he gains, and if he gains credit he would be no longer loathed, which would defeat its purpose. B, on the other hand, is popular for a reason, and as a result, he would be credited for at least one thing. A would most likely bring more harm than good into this society.

Pro's resolution has unequal disadvantages: A must be hated by most(not just unliked), while B doesn't need to be a straight-out idiot from eyes to toes. Being average intelligence, popular, credited, I don't see the problem with this. 

This guru explained this problem. If you are dumb and have a lot of credit, then you are more prone to be successful than someone smart with little credit, etc. B has more credit than A(common sense, you can see it), and as a result, B is more functional in society and will be trusted by not only his friends and acquaintances but those who see their credit. A would probably bring more harm than good into this society consider he needs to be constantly hated by lots of people at a time, and never be understood by the definition.

I rest my case. Vote Con.

All of cons arguments are merely baseless. If you are born loathed by everyone, it’s entirely plausible there is a societal or racist problem existing in this reborn/relived world. You make your own choices and you can contribute to society to show everyone they’re wrong. Consider the fact that whites hated blacks in the olden times. Maybe it’s a similar situation. But smart people always figure a way out and resolve the core problem. That’s why I’m willing to be reborn as smart but loathed.

Pro has dropped this point.

Pro has dropped this point.

I can effectively resolve this issue.

Pro has not chosen a scenario, in which you are respawned for a prejudiced world. In most cases, the world would be more moral than immoral consider people would support it instead of questioning it baselessly. Plus, if you changed the world, you would no longer be living a full life of smart and loathe: The time the revolution went successful, you are credited positively, which would defeat the whole purpose. A real smart and loathed person for a whole life must go against whatever the majority is, regardless if they are wrong or not. Pro has not questioned this definition. Remember: George Washington isn't a person full of loathing and faults the whole life. The moment the Declaration of Independence was issued, and the moment the U.S. won the revolutionary war against one of the greatest nations on the world at that time would make him a person of honor, i.e. popular. You won't say that the US hates Washington. The same goes for Lincoln and even Mao(His faults which made him notorious and negatively-viewed is another day's story).

Pro has the BoP: He needs to prove that living smart and hated is a good lifestyle. Living hated for one day to be praised is not within the criteria. In order to satisfy the criteria, said person must wish to disrupt society entirely his life to live a life full of loathing, while not gaining supporters enough to renovate the nation. That is how much he needs to be hated to satisfy the criteria. You see: No one satisfies it except for mastermind criminals.

I have stated the importance of credit and the mastermind criminal would constantly have negative credit(Lose faster than gaining). Achieving so is already hard considering the human desire to be understood, and only an insane person would try to do so, probably. If a person is always malevolent, he probably is never a good person to be within the society, and it is worse than a mediocre person(Average IQ, average social ability) that contributes none(0, whereas the mastermind criminal, is negative). The popular person would have positive credit, which is good. The latter would function better in society. Pro has dropped the importance of credit, so truth bars him from proving his case. Let's see.

Pro has conceded, thus dropping All of my points. Vote Con.