"I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Intended for fauxlaw but anyone who agrees with him may accept.
Almost everything is up for change: word count, number of rounds, etc.
Alpha is just the beginning of an alphabet
Many limits are imposed
Who says beliefs should match reality? Eugene Gendlin didn’t say that.
the claim stands unsourced...that statement is unsourced.
III Rebuttal: I don’t believe in meteorites
One may try and fail, and my expectation is that the failure should not deter the trial from being repeated with a different set of elements to try.
I will show, through this debate, that “I can’t” can be nothing but an attitude of defeat.
I Rebuttal: Just a little denial
II Rebuttal: “…an countably[sic] infinite sequence”II.a I do not understand what that argument means.
And I is just the beginning of an countably infinite sequence of whole numbers written in the style of the Romans.
I Rebuttal: Alpha is just the beginning of an alphabet
or, not II.b
I could not have said it better, myself, in arguing for declaring limits as nonexistent by my will to change reality.
my opponent edited my full argument under IV.b and IV.b.1 to just “failure should not deter the trial from being repeated with a different set of elements to try.” The full argument is mere[sic] revealing, and my opponent does himself no favors by truncating the argument, and the rebutting the truncated version.
My point with Luke Skywalker is that he quit trying. And that, dear friends, is the example of “I can’t” being a defeatist’s attitude.”
As I have fully three rounds to make argument, why would I “fire all of my guns at once” [thank you, Steppenwolf] if the Instigator has not limited the rounds of debate/rebuttal/defense by numbers of rounds to make these various phases of debate? I will make my arguments on my schedule, thank you.
It appears my opponent does not appreciate poetry.
I love Shakespeare.
I challenge my opponent to define where I said in my round 1 that “some limits” are imposed on us, and not all.
Many limits are imposed
I’ve quoted this reply by Yoda to Luke Skywalker often enough to know it is true.
Jesus did not expect perfection from his disciples tomorrow.
“Beliefs should match reality,” my opponent declares under his beta argument of round 1, but the claim stands unsourced. Who says beliefs should match reality? Eugene Gendlin didn’t say that. Our limits proponent, Pro said it. I do not accept his credentials.
I.a “My opponent’s round 2 begins with a little denial accusing me of violating DART Code of Conduct with regard to cross-contamination... because Pro opened the door of cross-contamination, which is quoted, with slight alteration, but clearly from my round 3, argument I.d of that previous debate.”This is from my round 2 argument I.a. I repeat it now.
I.b Well, my opponent’s round 3 doubled down, ignoring, once again, denying, once again, that he started the cross-contamination in the proposal of this debate. Since my opponent did not offer evidence against my round 2 rebuttal, but only complained about it, he has effectively dropped the argument. Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
II Rebuttal: I begins an infinite Roman sequence of whole numbers
II.b Now that I understand Pro’s awkward article/noun sequence “an [sic] countably”, [‘a’ is used when the noun in singular and begins with a consonant], I can properly argue the point as was meant in round 2. However, as I challenged Pro to “define where I said in my round 1 that “some limits” are imposed on us, and not all” and that Pro referred to my statement in round 1, I.a “Many limits are imposed,” I will defer this rebuttal to IX. See below, Or, do we now buy, “I can’t?”
III Rebuttal: “Gravity still exists”
III.b So claims Pro in his round 3, rebutting my personal childhood Superman story in round 2, III.a. Yes, indeed, gravity still exists, in spite of my childish belief that it was interrupted by wearing my Superman suit. Shall I declare victory, now, since my opponent acknowledged my entire point that all limits are all imposed on us, including all laws of nature, in spite of belief? But that, in spite of imposed limits, we may still believe they can be overcome, and then innovate the means by which we may do so? No, I’ll continue. Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
IV Rebuttal: “Subtlety is not what debate is about”
IV.a I beg to differ. I suggest my opponent not worry about my style and keep his advice. My style is mine. I’ll write as I please. If it cannot be followed, that’s not on me. I write in English. Perhaps a dictionary ought to be at hand. I keep one readily at hand, myself, sop I do not ask anything I do not do, myself. Points, or not, I use literary devices. Maybe I do not debate for points. Maybe my opponent does. So be it. I use paronomasia, double-entendre, and other forms. Follow, or not, is entirely to the reader. Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
V Rebuttal: I misspelled Gendlin, but we’ve been to the moon
V.a So I did. The point of my argument/rebuttal was still obviously understood, annoyance, or not. So I lose a point for S&G. Accepted. However, Pro then launched a rebuttal that because the Wright Brothers created a wind tunnel to prove a design scheme that would appear to master flight, and then built a full-scale model, and flew the Wright Flyerat Kitty Hawk, that they were expressing a “thorough knowledge of their limits.” [Pro, round 3, V.] If my opponent insists on the mantras, so be it. I argue that, recognizing there was a limit, their innovation overcame that limit by their obvious success of achieving flight. Flight is the mechanical means, naturally or by innovated mastery, of defeating one law by the application of a higher law. That the higher law has limits of its own, challenging our further effort with innovation, has taken us, well within a century of effort, from a flight of 120 feet to one of 480,000 miles to the moon and back. So, who cares that I misspelled “Gandlin.” Gandlin, and Pro. Meanwhile, look what other men have accomplished by ignoring limits, and further, by believing those limits can be overcome as if not there in the first place. Yes, I acknowledge the limits remain, but, what matter if they are overwhelmed instead of overwhelming us? Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
VI Rebuttal: To quote fully, or not fully?
VI Regardless of quotes, my opponent chose to argue that point, and not my argument of round 2, VI, that, while Thomas Edison made 1,000 trials before succeeding with creating the light bulb, Luke Skywalker tried once to lift his X-wing, and quit, thus demonstrating, “And that, dear friends, is the example of ‘I can’t’ being a defeatist’s attitude.” As to my opponent’s repeated claim that one example doesn’t make a consistent argument, for which he has never made a convincing argument sustained by any scholastics, I refer the reader to my response above, rebuttal II. Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
VIII Rebuttal: “The thing about lying in a debate”
VIII.a So I am accused of lying [“It appears my opponent does not appreciate poetry”] because I make an assumption based on what Pro has, himself, said: “But then he proceeds with poetry, not claims or evidence. I'm not sure what to make of such a non sequitur.” I used Shakespeare, a poet/playwright, recognized as the foremost bard of the English language, as a scholarly source for my argument, yet my opponent calls it “non sequitur.” Where’s my lie? What is my lie? That Pro accuses my use of poetry to support an argument, and he declares, “I love Shakespeare,” but also calls Shakespeare's poetry “non sequitur?” I defer to the readers/voters, but, in the meantime, do we buy, “I can’t?”
IX Rebuttal: Reprise of Rebuttal II
IX.a My opponent declares, simply, “Limits exist.”[from his round 1, Alpha]. I rebutted in my round 1, I.a that “many limits are imposed on us.”Pro argued in round 2 “Many, but not all,” ignoring my round 1, I.b argument that “We also impose limits on ourselves,”justifying that all limits are imposed on us, i.e. from others, and by our own choices. Therefore, as I concluded I, I.b, “We are defeated by our attitude”by declaring “I can’t.” Always, always, always, not just necessarily by assuming not all limits are imposed on us. “If you don’t believe me, think about: a job you might have lost or resigned from; an illness you let go untreated; a relationship that went awry – or any circumstance that you wanted to improve upon and couldn’t identify a way to do it. All of these intersections of defeat can be impacted by how you go about ‘throwing in the towel’ when life goes awry.” [bolded for emphasis of “All”] Or, do we buy, “I can’t?”
X Rebuttal: What is truth?
X.a Pro argues that just because I repeat Yoda’s comment to Luke [“Try not. Do or do not. There is no try.”], that it is not automatically true. He’s right; it is not automatic. What it is is demonstrated by experience of people willing to by unlimited by limits, to overcome limits. Over and over again by enough individuals to demonstrate its truth. By Edison. By Einstein. By Peter, who succeeded in walking on water toward Jesus, who stood on water, encouraging him, until Peter succumbed to disbelief in what he was presently accomplishing, by the Wright brothers, and, yes, ultimately by Luke Skywalker. By astronauts succeeding in a challenge offered by President Kennedy to “land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth” when, at the time of the challenge, we did not have the technology, and yet, within the ten years, achieved it. By anyone willing to take up the challenge from Jesus to “Be ye therefore perfect,” and do so one step at a time. My opponent argues that the scripture I cited [Matthew 5: 48] does not say “Jesus did not expect perfection from his disciples tomorrow.” Some things just have to be accepted as obvious. Are any of us perfect? Have any of us ever been perfect? Come on, that is a lame argument that the verse does not say specifically what I proposed. Another verse does not say that we only have to treat others as we would be, ourselves, treated, but only on Fridays. But, Friday would be a good day to start such an attitude, yeah? God in heaven, do we applaud the achievers of the above accomplishments, including trying to be perfect at least in a few things, and do likewise, or, do we buy “I can’t?”
VII Argument: Out of sequence, but who’s counting: I can’t is always a defeatist’s attitude
VII.a By the demonstration of the few individuals noted in rebuttal X, above, and of countless others who have been bold enough to exceed limits, and not be self-limited by them, they emphatically prove that “I can’t” is simply missing from their vocabularies. Natural laws not withstanding, we have defeated gravity. We have defeated the sound barrier. We have defeated the limitations of our basic survival needs. We have defeated the flat earth. We have defeated geocentrism. Whether we achieve the plateau, against overwhelming odds, to say “I can” on one trial, or if it takes many trials, yet believing all the while that the kid in the Superman suit can fly, there is but one result for that belief and undaunted effort: the kid flies. He did. It took 30 years, and the suit didn’t fit anymore, but it did not have to fit. Other tools, other materials managed to overcome that wrinkle in the fabric of the achievement. Do not tell me “I can’t.” That is utter, complete, unmitigated bullshyte.
There is not one “I can’t” that will ever be defeated if we do not quit saying, “I can’t.” There is not one “I can’t” that cannot be overcome by our will to do so, and our effort to make it happen. Or, do we buy, “I can’t,” and don’t?
I rest my case.