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

We both agree on the definition of try [I.e. to make an effort to do or accomplish (something)]. I said 'Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried."' You claim that this is not true, and that the definition does not say how much effort is required for something to be considered "trying." But I think the definition does state how much effort. It says "an effort." The words "an" and "a" when used before nouns and noun phrases denote a single but unspecified person or thing. The term "an effort" denotes a single effort. Not a third of an effort, not half of an effort, and not three quarters of an effort. You also claim that committing to something 100% will not necessarily mean that the commitment will pay off, stating "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)." I disagree. I think you fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean. If winning a debate is really the ultimate goal, then everything else would be neglected to attain that goal. You would take days off of work and/or school, spend all of the free time between rounds analyzing and developing arguments, and refine the wording to perfection before posting. Of course, I know of no examples of anyone actually committing to a debate this much, but I definitely believe that it would pay off. You state "Moreover, you do not have to commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for." I don't see how this is an argument against what I said. If anything, it supports my argument. If you believe that you can accomplish something with only an 80% or 90% commitment, obviously that goal would also be attained with a 100% commitment. My claim was that the goal will be attained with a 100% commitment. This does not imply that the goal will definitely not be attained with less commitment. When you claim that you could have studied for a math test as hard as you can without getting an A+, I believe you once again fail to understand what a full and total commitment would require. You would have to make sure that you learned everything that could be on the math test, inside and out. If there was uncertainty in any area, you would have to make sure that you cleared up the misunderstanding. And that would require additional practice problems, reinforcing everything learned, and constantly working at it until you had no doubts at all about anything on the test. Failing to commit to this level, and then studying hard the night before the test does not constitute a commitment of 100%. Now for the new arguments: You say that the existence of "process" proves the existence of "trying." The process of doing a math problem is used as an example. Then you state "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." As a reminder, we are debating the quote "Do or do not. There is no try." Getting the answer to the math problem is DOING the math problem. There is always going to be an intermediate process that leads to attaining any goal. The fact that the process exists does not disprove the quote. Going through the process to get the answer and then arriving at the answer is not TRYING to solve a math problem. It is solving it. As far as the Bruce Mau quote goes, there is really nothing to say. Whether the process or the answer is more important is an entirely separate debate. We are not arguing as to whether the process or the outcome is more important. The process could take precedence without detracting from my argument. My argument is simply that committing to something completely will yield the desired outcome. Telling me that the process of reaching the outcome is more important is irrelevant. To recap, I do believe that there are outcomes. And yes, some process will take place to get to that outcome. And if you commit to reaching a certain outcome, you will reach it. There is no contradiction in acknowledging the existence of outcomes, processes, and the truth of the quote. Then you move to the definitions of try. Yoda does not fail to realize that there is more than one definition of the word "try." As with all homonyms, context clues must be used to arrive at the correct definition. If I claim that I am going to buy a new mouse for my computer, I don't know anyone foolish enough to believe that I am going to a pet store to make this purchase. Nor do I hear people clarifying the word each time it is used. Context lets others know whether we are discussing a small rodent or a hand-operated device controlling the coordinates of a cursor. By not stating which type of mouse is under discussion, all of the people that use the term are not failing to realize that there is more than one definition. It is simply that context makes such explanations unnecessary. Yoda's quote in question clearly refers to the definition on which both of us have agreed. To "try" in the quote is to make an effort. It is not to perform a scientific experiment. If someone bakes a cake and asks me to try a piece, I cannot reply "I can only do the cake or not do the cake. There is no try." It wouldn't make any sense. Trying food is also not the type of try that is meant. We could exhaust all of the definitions of the word, but that just goes off on a tangent. The context of both the movie scene and the quote lets everyone know the correct definition of the word "try." To debate under any other definition would be to give up on debating the validity of the quote.