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

I will now address my opponent’s arguments/rebuttals. My opponent’s rebuttals to my rebuttals. “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 are essentially stating that it must be a full effort, since the definition is stating an effort; however, then we would have to determine, “What is an effort?” How big would it be? You cannot really measure “an effort”. Everyone has a different perspective of what “an effort” would be. If you put what you consider “an effort” into an action, someone else may consider that half an effort and not “an effort”. Then, once you determine what “an effort” would be, you have to determine how many efforts it takes to get to 100% commitment. Just because you make an effort does not necessarily mean that you give 100% effort. It might take you several efforts to get to that stage. Moreover, let us say that I made “an effort” to clean my garage. Does that necessarily mean that it is spotless in all areas because I committed to cleaning it 100%? No, it simply means that I made an effort to clean the garage, and I could have failed or succeeded. Using common sense, we can assume that the speaker who says, “I made an effort to clean my garage” does not mean that he made a 100% effort to clean his garage. Rather, he simply made “an effort”, and because “an effort” is different for all of us, the effort could have resulted in him having a still very messy garage (since his view of “an effort” would not be very much). Alternatively, it could be very clean, because his view of “an effort” would be very high. Like I said, there is no way to measure, “an effort”, it mainly depends on the view of a person. In addition, let us say that we have “a number”. Cant “a number” be any number? So could it not be 1.5? 1.5 is not a whole number, but it is still “a number”. Therefore, we can apply this situation to “an effort”. “I think you fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean.” I do not fail to understand what committing to a debate 100% would mean. I simply claimed that it was possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100%. It is possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100% because you could be against someone else who is committing 100% as well; therefore, it is possible to lose a debate even if you are committed 100%. This makes your arguments of, “Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried." And at that point, the commitment would pay off”, incorrect, as I have proved that at that point, the commitment might not 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.” Again, I stated that it is possible to not commit to something completely and totally to get what you are striving for. “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.” Remember, I am arguing just because you commit to something completely and totally, 100% does not necessarily mean that your commitment will pay off. In other words, it is possible to commit something 100% and still fail. (Your arguments are stating that if you commit to something 100% your commitment will pay off. I am pointing out the exceptions, thus proving your argument wrong, since you didn’t address those exceptions in the first place.) You could know your math book inside and out, know everything there is to know, and then realize that you studied for the wrong thing. My opponent’s rebuttals to my arguments. “As a reminder, we are debating the quote "Do or do not. There is no try. "” I realize we are arguing the existence of trying. I was simply proving the existence of processes in that paragraph so that later on I could link the existence of processes to the existence of trying. “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.” The fact that process exists proves the existence of trying. I am not stating that trying is the process; I am stating that it is an essential piece to the process. Because trying is an essential piece of the process (as I have proved earlier), process cannot exist with out trying. I have proved the existence of process; therefore, process exists. If it exists and it cannot exist without trying, then trying has to exist or else process would not exist. This is how the existence of process proves the existence of trying, thus making the quote wrong. “Whether the process or the answer is more important is an entirely separate debate.” I put Bruce Mau’s quote just to further reinforce any doubt that process exists. “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.” There is a contradiction, though. You are obviously arguing against the existence of trying, correct? I have proved that trying is so essential to the process that the process cannot exist without trying. If there is no trying, there is no process, which means you are also arguing against the existence of process. By arguing against the existence of process, you are arguing against the existence of outcome. It all boils down to this, since you are arguing against trying, you are arguing against process. Since you are arguing against process, you are arguing against outcome. At the same time, you are supporting outcome; therefore, you have contradicted yourself. “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.” I understand that we must use context clues; however, in Round 1 I clearly stated what the arguments were to be. I stated that you will be agreeing with the resolution AND that you have to prove there is no such thing as trying. (I was referring to the most commonly used terms of try.) The resolution is just one of the forms of try that you are arguing against; therefore, you have yet to prove that these forms of try do not exist. “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.” I have already stated that we are not just arguing against one form of try; therefore, the argument you have made against me is futile. In a way, you have dug your own hole. It is EXACTLY my point that you CANNOT reply, “I can only do the cake or not do the cake. There is no try”, because it would make no sense. You have to say, “OK, I will try the cake”. Alternatively, you could say, “OK, I will not try the cake”. In this way, it supports the existence of trying, because you cannot reply with a do or do not statement; you have to respond with a try statement (or else it would not work). 3. To master the force, you must “try”. Luke, in Star Wars, wants to master the force. This requires effort. If you do not put effort into the force, then you will fail at mastering the force. Moreover, you need the will to do the force. In order to have the will to do it, it requires that you put effort into the action. It requires that you actually care about it enough to “try” to do it. Therefore, “try” does exist.