"Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda

Now, it is on to my arguments! First, I will rebut my opponent’s arguments and then I will bring my own arguments into play. I will try to do my best (if you get what I mean). Definition: “The definition of try is to make an effort to do or accomplish (something). " I agree with this definition. My opponent’s arguments: “Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried. "” This is not entirely true. Let us refer back to the definition of the word, “try”. It means to make an effort to do or accomplish (something). The definition does not state how much effort is required for something to be considered “trying”. Therefore, your argument, which I have quoted above, is incorrect. You state that the only way you can say that you have truly “tried” is to commit to something completely and totally, whereas the definition does not require you to commit to something completely or totally. It simply requires you to make an effort, no matter how small or how big. “And at that point, the commitment would pay off. No one putting all of their effort into an attainable enterprise is going to say "I tried"-- they are going to say "I did. "” My opponent follows up with this argument. I have already proven that his previous argument is incorrect; therefore, this argument has no value. However, if we were to assume that his previous argument is correct, this new argument would still be incorrect. Simply because you commit to something completely and totally does not necessarily mean that your commitment will pay off. For example, if you commit to winning a debate (such as this) fully and totally, your commitment might not pay off (in other words, you might not win the debate). Moreover, you do not have to commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for. You could commit to something partially (about 80-90%) and still get what you are striving for. “You will find countless millions that claim they have "tried" something or other. But the efforts had to be half-hearted in order for them to not succeed. ” I have stated before how someone could commit to something fully and totally and still fail, so this argument is irrelevant as well. I could have studied for a math test as hard as I can, and I could still not make an “A+”, which would have been my goal. I have also stated how you can commit to something partially (80-90%) and still reach what you are striving for. Now I shall present my first argument. 1. The existence of “processes” proves the existence of “trying”. My argument is telling us that the existence of a process can prove the existence of trying. The first thing I shall do is prove the existence of processes. An example of a process is doing a math problem. There is a beginning (the problem) and an outcome (the answer to the problem). Now, how did we get to the outcome of the problem? We went through a process of solving the math problem to get the answer; therefore, processes do exist. In fact, processes can be even more important than the outcome! When you solve a math problem, the answer is important; however, the process as to how to get to that answer is even more important! “Process is more important than outcome. When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we’ve already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there. ” This is a quote from Bruce Mau, a Canadian Designer [1]. So, how does Mau’s quote apply to this situation? It applies because once you figure out the process of how to solve that math problem, you can apply it to all the other math problems in that area of math. So not only do processes exist and not only are they essential to getting an outcome, but they are also more important than the outcome. Now that we have proved the existence of processes, you may ask, “How does this prove the existence of trying? ” A process requires that you try (in other words, it requires that you put effort into your actions). Without trying, there is no process, which results in no outcome. As you can see, “trying” is essential to a process. Because this is so, if a process exists, so does trying, because without trying, there would be no process. The process is the big picture, but trying is one of the parts of a process. Therefore, because my opponent is arguing that there is no such thing as trying, he is essentially stating that there is no such thing as processes (which I have proven to be true), which makes his arguments irrelevant. Not only does my argument prove the existence of trying, it also rebuts one of his last points. “There really is no middle ground. ” This brings us back to my opponent’s second to last statement. By stating, “There is no middle ground”, you are stating there is no trying. Moreover, by stating, there is no such thing as trying; you are stating that there is no such thing as a process. If you are stating that there is no such thing as processes, then you are also stating that there is no such thing as an outcome. I have proven that there is such thing as processes and trying. You have agreed that there is such thing as an outcome because you are agreeing to the resolution “Do or do not, there is no try”. The resolution is stating that there is a “Do or do not”, which are examples of an outcome of a situation. You state that there is no middle ground, and at the same time, you agree that there are such things as outcomes. Therefore, you have essentially contradicted yourself. 2. There is more than one meaning of try. When Yoda quoted “Do or do not, there is no try”, he neglected to realize that there is more than one meaning of try. The definition that my opponent and I have agreed upon is a common use of try, but there are other common uses of try as well. From Dictionary. com [2], we find that there are several other forms of try. A commonly used one is, “to test the effect or result of”. There is also, “to test the quality, value, fitness, accuracy, etc. ” Therefore, my opponent and Yoda are stating that there is no such thing as testing as well as trying. From the definition that I have quoted from Dictionary. com, it states, “to test the effect or result of”. Trying is not only putting an effort or attempting to do something, but it is also testing. I shall now prove the existence of testing. When scientists want to make a law or a theory, what do you think they have to do? They have to go through the scientific method. In the scientific method, they do something called an experiment. The definition of experiment is a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc. [3] In the definition that I have provided, it states that an experiment is a test. So not only is trying testing, it is also experimenting! Scientists experiment all the time. They experiment to determine whether something is true or false, a law or a theory, correct or incorrect; therefore, experimenting exists. Because experimenting exists, so does testing. Because testing exists, so does trying. I have proven the existence of trying by proving that there is such thing as testing and experimenting since testing and experimenting are trying. I apologize that I could not include a summary. Sadly, it seemed that it was too many characters. Anyways, I await my opponent’s arguments and wish him good luck. [1] . http://vimeo.com... (It is not necessary to watch the video. The quote is directly under the video. ) [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...+