Instigator / Pro
0
1558
rating
25
debates
64.0%
won
Topic

"I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1598
rating
44
debates
65.91%
won
Description
~ 134 / 5,000

Intended for fauxlaw but anyone who agrees with him may accept.
Almost everything is up for change: word count, number of rounds, etc.

Round 1
Pro
My argument is simple. There is a time and a place where it makes sense and is not a defeatist attitude to say "I can't."

Preface:
Science and philosophy can be characterized as sharing 1 core value: the answering of mysterious questions. If you look at the Ancient Greeks, you will see that these questions were answered with the mythology of gods, monsters, and magic. Today, science seeks to prove that which is not known, and destroy any beliefs that are false.

"What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it."
-Eugene Gendlin.

So far, all I've done seems to be an argument for truth, which isn't the subject of the debate. However, I believe that my stance is the truth. That isn't evidence in itself, as Con likely believes that his stance is the truth as well.

Alpha: Limits exist.
I don't think that Con will contend this statement, as it's blatantly true. The physical laws of the universe are limits. The laws of governments are limits. The rules in the Code of Conduct on DArt are limits. 

Beta: Beliefs should match reality. 
Since I value the truth a lot, this one feels as obvious to me as the first. However, I don't think everyone values the truth as much as I do, since people lie all the time, so I will try to explain this.
This is where the Litany of Gendlin from before comes in. I'll break it down.
~~~
"What is true is already so."
Reality is constant. It doesn't change based on your beliefs.
~~~
"Owning up to it doesn't make it worse."
Once again, your beliefs don't affect reality. If you live in a world where everyone will die from an meteorite in five years, knowing that fact won't change the reality of the meteorite.
~~~
"Not being open about it doesn't make it go away."
A false belief about the existence of the meteorite won't prevent the meteorite from hitting.
~~~
"And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with."
An accurate belief allows you to change reality more effectively. With enough forewarning, you could do something about the meteorite.
~~~
"Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it"
It can only benefit you to have accurate beliefs.
~~~
Now, I can anticipate that Con will say that a quote is not evidence. However, the unbolded statements make sense by themselves. Logic lends the greatest credibility. I include the quote because Gendlin is better at saying it than I am.

Gamma: α + β

Since I have established that reality contains limits and that beliefs should match reality, it follows that my mental model of reality (i.e., my beliefs) should also contain limits. Since I'm honest with myself, I look at the limits in my mental model and say, "I can't fly by jumping off of a cliff and flapping really hard," since all of my best informed beliefs about reality say that I am physically incapable (i.e., I can't do it.) Con's position, by the definition of the debate, is that this statement, along with all other "I can't" statements, are the product of a defeatist attitude. 
It is my stance that having an accurate belief preventing me from doing something is not defeatist. It isn't defeatist to say, "I can't fly...", it is merely the truth.
Con
I Rebuttal: Alpha is just the beginning of an alphabet

I.a Pro’s argument for limits is that limits are imposed on us, such as his list of laws. Many limits are imposed, and we can argue that we are limited by those impositions of limits, but we are not truly bound by them, particularly when we ignore the consequences of acting contrary to them. That is a choice. Choices are not necessarily bound by limits, but we are bound by consequences. Therefore, we exchange limits for choices. We have just stepped beyond alpha.
 
I.b However, we also impose limits on ourselves. These are not laws; they are admission that we shy away from facing the decision to challenge imposed limits, or worse, ignorant of, or lacking the initiative to step outside of our comfort zone. These are limits we impose on ourselves, law or no law. We resist stepping beyond ourselves, or we try once, as Luke Skywalker, and declare failure: “I can’t.” We are defeated by our attitude.
 
II. Rebuttal: Beta is just a belief, but it is unlimited
 
II.b “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. Further, I will argue beliefs are not limited by reality. I can believe whatever the bloody hell I want to believe. Beliefs, contrary to the imperative to match reality, are not bound at all by reality. “Beliefs are not made by reality in a mechanical or logical or psychological sense. Reality naturally - that is, metaphysically - instigates belief…  [belief] is interpretation; not merely reality aware of itself as fact, but reality judging itself, approving and disapproving.”[1] To wit, as said, I can believe what I want. I can believe there are blue Nav’i, [Avatar-style – the fiction movie, yeah?] tall as a high horse [with six legs], living on a moon with floating mountains just around the corner from reality. This belief imposes no limits because it does not even impose any action by me. I can just believe it without consequences if I do not act on it. On the other hand, my opponent declars what limits belief is reality, whether we believe it, or not. But that statement is unsourced. Gendlin is not there.
 
III Rebuttal: I don’t believe in meteorites
 
II.a Nothing in Gendlin’s litany, cited by Pro in his round 1, insists that I believe in meteorites, or not, because he declares “owning up to it doesn’t make it worse,”and “not being open about it doesn’t make it go away.” So, I don’t believe in meteorites, and Gendlin shakes my hand. But, then, my opponent steps into my territory with his interpretation of the last of the litany in round 1: “An accurate belief allows you to change reality more effectively. With enough forewarning, you could do something about the meteorite.” That is support for my argument: “with enough forewarning,” there are no limits regarding the meteorite. Thank you; I appreciate Pro’s business.
 
 
IV Argument: ‘I can’t’ is a defeatist’s attitude
 
which dealt with limitations, which I believe should only be self-imposed, I used the example from Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back,with the first meeting of Luke Skywalker and Yoda. Luke has landed his spacecraft in a swamp. Yoda tells him to lift it out of the swamp using the Force, the power Luke has come seeking knowledge of its use from Yoda. Luke tries, but fails, declaring, “I can’t.”Yoda’s reply: “That is why your fail.” Pro took umbrage with the example, first, because it was a fiction, and Pro maintained that quotes from fiction are “irrelevant.” He backed off that claim, but only if another source cold back up the fictional declaration. That’s not the purpose of this debate, and that debate, as of this writing, is still in voting phase, so we don’t know the outcome of the “irrelevance” of fiction.
No matter, it will probably have bearing in this debate, as well. I draw no distinction between truth and fiction if a fictional declaration makes sense, I say it’s usable. I’d also say: let the voters decide a fictional declaration credibility, remembering the literary device of suspension of disbelief.
 
IV.b 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. After all, Albert Einstein is alleged to have said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”However, according to Business Insider, this quote is misattributed to Einstein. It belongs to Rita Mae Brown, [alert!] a mystery novelist who, in 1983, published Sudden Death, featuring fictional ‘Jane Fulton.’ Wrote Ms. Brown, “Unfortunately, Susan didn’t remember what Jane Fulton once said. ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.'”[2] Well, how many of us agreed with this ‘quote’ when it was attributed to Einstein, including Pro? I’d wager most of us, virtually all of us who agreed with the quote when attributed to Einstein also agree with it attributed to Ms. Brown, our mystery novelist. “But it’s fiction!” shouts Pro. So what? If the truth hurts, it only means it has a thorn, as sharp and painful as the grasp of any rose, which also smells sweet. [Still another fiction!]
 
IV.b.1 I digress, but there was a point. I’m needling now. I do not argue that trial is useless. Of course it is not. Edison says he made a thousand trials to find the right element to use as the illuminating filament in the vacuum of a glass light bulb. He had the exact correct idea; it was just a matter of the right element to use to make the idea successful. Yes, sometimes, that takes multiple trials. God bless him for trying. He succeeded. 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.
 
IV.b.2 Oh, but the debate is not that clear-cut, is it? There’s a forest around that tree. “I can’t isn’t necessarily a defeatist attitude,” said my opponent. Ay, there’s the rub: necessarily. In other words, there are conditions in which, so my opponent claims, “I can’t” is not a defeatist attitude. I will show, through this debate, that “I can’t” can be nothing but an attitude of defeat. O, rose, O, tree, O, every living thing that swells by the breeze blown up its elegant posterior…
 
Come, let us reason together.
 
V Argument: Attitude, thy name is variable
 
V.a Juliet [Shakespeare’s] declared to Romeo from the balcony:
            “O, swear not by the attitude, the inconsistent attitude,
             That monthly changes in her circled orb,
             Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.”[3]
 
V.a.1 How can something so inconsistent be dependable? Credible? Once again, with feeling: “Beliefs are not made by reality in a mechanical or logical or psychological sense. Reality naturally - that is, metaphysically - instigates belief…  [belief] is interpretation; not merely reality aware of itself as fact, but reality judging itself, approving and disapproving.”[4]
 
 
 
 
 
 

Round 2
Pro
My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this. The DArt Code of Conduct prohibits cross-thread contamination. "Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site... Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible." [1]

I encourage voters to disregard any points made in the context of our previous debates. (In this case just IV.a, but if he continues, please extend.)
Rebuttals:

Alpha is just the beginning of an alphabet
And I is just the beginning of an countably infinite sequence of whole numbers written in the style of the Romans. What is your point?
~~~
I.a
Many limits are imposed
But not all. If you bypass any laws of physics, be sure to let me know. Alpha still stands.
~~~
I.b
In your example, Luke definitely does have a defeatist attitude. He gives up after the X Wing starts to rise, because it gets a little harder. This is the antithesis of my claim. Having already seen the force do amazing things, including starting to lift the ship himself and a Jedi master with 800 years of experience telling him it's possible, his modeled beliefs shouldn't reflect his attitude as shown in the film. "I can't. It's too big." and "You want the impossible." It doesn't make sense for Luke to =give up at this point. [2]
However, a single example of a defeatist's "I can't" doesn't generalize to every "I can't."
~~~
II.b (did you skip a?)
Who says beliefs should match reality? Eugene Gendlin didn’t say that. 
I will leave the voters to decide if they believe this is a reasonable conclusion based on Gendlin's words. No, he didn't explicitly say that in the Litany, and I'm not about to buy his works to try and find a quote merely for the purposes of this debate. Gendlin doesn't need to, though. He supports every step of my reasoning except the last, and as I said before, "Logic lends the greatest credibility." 

the claim stands unsourced
...
that statement is unsourced.
As much as you seem to value sources, a sourceless argument isn't automatically defeated by a wrong argument with sources. Sources are only worth 2 of the 7 possible points for a reason.
~~~
III Rebuttal: I don’t believe in meteorites
And where are your sources? You think all of my statements need to be sourced, but this claim isn't supported by anything, when it is more extraordinary than any of mine? "Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence" [3] Also, you keep mentioning credibility, but what is credibility? How do you decide what sources are credible? I generally judge it to be the one that backs up its claims with facts. But wait! Facts are true statements about reality. If your criterion for credibility are facts, and credible sources are used to support arguments designed to change people's minds, then you are suggesting yourself that beliefs should match reality. In other words, facts should change your mind. If you're using a different criterion for credibility, then I'd love to hear it.
NASA, a government agency and a scientific foundation, supports the claim that meteorites exist. [4]
~~~
IV.a will be ignored because of cross-thread contamination. Con is welcome to reframe this argument outside of the context of our previous debate.
~~~
IV.b
 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.
This is an interesting argument to make for someone on Yoda's side of things. When he said "That is why you fail.", which you quoted, this was part of his famous saying, "Do or do not, there is no try." Either this statement is false, in which case Con is discredited for citing a source which is wrong, or this statement is true, and this entire argument, centered around trying, feels rather stupid.
~~~
IV.b.1
As I already said, this is an example of a defeatist attitude. This doesn't extend to every "I can't."
IV.b.2
 I will show, through this debate, that “I can’t” can be nothing but an attitude of defeat.
But then he proceeds with poetry, not claims or evidence. I'm not sure what to make of such a non sequitur. I think it's supposed to feel connected, due to the forest/trees thing at the beginning of the argument, but it's literally just poetry. It makes no point relevant to the argument. Unless I'm missing something, in which case please speak plainly. 
~~~
V.
The point made here is attitude is inconsistent, which once again isn't relevant. Shakespeare is nice. I love Shakespeare. But Shakespeare was talking about the moon, so putting "attitude" in there destroys any point Shakespeare was trying to make. I could do the same thing.

“O, swear not by the [fauxlaw], the inconsistent [fauxlaw],
             That monthly changes in [his] circled orb,
             Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.”
[5]

Obviously, this isn't a good argument against Con, but all I did was the same thing he did with "attitude." The quote only holds its initial value as a quote if you leave it in its essence. Changing the subject of the verses is straight up destroying the point of the original.
~~~

Recap: The only valid point Con has made is that some limits are imposed upon us and can be bypassed. However, my example regarding physical laws is unaffected by this argument.
~~~
Sources:
R1


R2
[2] Star Wars Episode V, The Empire Strikes Back, lines spoken by Mark Hamill and contextual information.
[3] Carl Sagan, astronomer
[5]Romeo and Juliet,II, ii, 958-960, William Shakespeare, ca. 1595
Con
I Rebuttal: Just a little denial
 
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, and then continues the denial in posts #4, and #6. I declare his claims as DOA [dead on arrival, for the uninformed] because Pro was first to do the cross-contaminating by proposition of this debate title: “‘I can’t’ isn’t necessarily a defeatist attitude.” Without repeating it, for fear of yet another Pro reprisal, let me just reference the debate in question, which is, indeed, referenced in my round 1 of this debate, used 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. I suggest readers understand the full context of this incident and declare no fault on either side, but, do as you must with all consideration.
 
II Rebuttal: “…an countably[sic] infinite sequence”
 
II.a I do not understand what that argument means. When it is clarified, I will reply with a point of argument/rebuttal/defense, which ever is appropriate.
 
III. Rebuttal: “‘Many limits are imposed,’ but not all”
 
III.a Pro’s alpha: “Limits exist” does not stand because limitations are imposed whether someone, or an organization, nature, or ourselves do the imposing. Tell me what limit is not imposed? My opponent cites laws of physics. Fine, let’s use gravity as an example. This is a natural law, as I included above. However, all limits can be opposed by choice, which argument Pro completely dropped. The law of gravity as it applies to me can be chosen to be ignored by me. In that condition, the limit [gravity] does not deter my choice to ignore it. To me, therefore, it does not exist. This is a maxim for any limit whatsoever we encounter. I will suffer the consequences of that choice,a matter a discussed in my round 1, I.a, I.b, but Pro dropped that argument, as well, concentrating only on rebutting that limits exist, as if they are impenetrable walls. When I was a boy, my mother, a talented seamstress, made a Superman costume for me for my birthday. I promptly climbed up to the roof of our house, easily attainable due to strategic treatment of architecture, stood at an eave, and jumped. The fall was roughly ten feet onto grass. The law of gravity immediately applied. However, wearing my suit, I reasoned that I could fly. I watched it happen every week on television, but I never saw Clark Kent fly; only Superman. I wrongly believed it was the suit that offered the power of flight. I ignored gravity, but paid the consequence: just a little soreness; I did not break anything. The point is, to me, the limit, gravity, did not exist. Therefore, because I chose to believe otherwise, as I argued in round 1, I.a, “[I] exchange[d] limits for choices.” Pro launched this argument of a belief system; I choose to challenge what belief is, and I have and will.
 
IV Rebuttal: “Did you skip a?”
 
IV.b… Yes, I did, but I was not a mistake. Read: “II.b.” Aloud. Add: “or, not II.b.” A subtle joke. You fell in. Sometimes, it helps to read out loud, like an actor reading a script. Note that I just did it again: “Four be...” As in “For belief to be reality, it should match reality, but only when it matches.”
 
V Rebuttal: “I don’t believe in meteorites”
 
V.a As I said in round 1, II.b, and as Gandlin “bodily” was not there in the previous argument, he followed Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “To be ornot to be.”It is a choice, with consequences, as argued above, and in my round 1. That argument is unrebutted. That I stated, “I don’t believe in meteorites” was also a joke. A joke to demonstrate, as I argued in round 1, III.a, that Gandlin’s litany is not an absolute. My opponent even argued, “An accurate belief allows you to change reality more effectively. With enough forewarning, you could do something about the meteorite.” I could not have said it better, myself, in arguing for declaring limits as nonexistent by my will to change reality.Like Yoda telling Luke that he can change his reality. I know my opponent is going to argue that I’ve reversed myself. Do I believe in meteorites, but, being forewarned, they can be abolished if they approach too close to earth, or do I believe meteorites do not exist? If it were not an absurd argument, I’d give one answer: yes. Because, by abolishment, that meteorite no longer exists. Fair enough?
 
VI Rebuttal: An interesting argument to make from Yoda’s perspective
 
VI.a My opponent argues that Luke, having tried once, and failed to move his X-wing, rebuts my argument that “failure should not deter the trial from being repeated with a different set of elements to try”because Yoda said, “That is why you fail.”
Yes, as transliterated here, it does appear to be conflicting statements. But, only because 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 revealing, and my opponent does himself no favors by truncating the argument, and the rebutting the truncated version. My full argument was, “I do not argue that trial is useless. Of course it is not. Edison says he made a thousand trials to find the right element to use as the illuminating filament in the vacuum of a glass light bulb. He had the exact correct idea; it was just a matter of the right element to use to make the idea successful. Yes, sometimes, that takes multiple trials. God bless him for trying. He succeeded. 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.”
 
VII Rebuttal: I will show, through this debate…
 
VII.a Well, the truncation continues. My opponent took my statement, quoted from my round 1, IV.b.2, to mean I would reveal all my argument in that first round. 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.
 
VIII Rebuttal: O, swear not by the ______ [fill in the blank]
 
VIII.a It appears my opponent does not appreciate poetry. His loss. The fact is, being a poetic license by literary device, to wit,a metaphor, Juliet may have plugged a variety of words into the verse and would have still presented a successful metaphor, the point of which is revealed in the third line, “Lest thy love prove likewise variable.”‘Moon’ certainly fits, given its phases observed from Earth. Any word that is understood to have a variety of expressions would suffice. ‘Attitude’ clearly has a variety of expressions. That I do, as my opponent suggests by plugging my avatar into the mix, may require further investigation. As the target of the barb, it is inappropriate for me to weigh in. I have a bias. However, as to the point of use of literary devices, according to my opponent, who declared, “Changing the subject of the verses is straight up destroying the point of the original”[That is, Shakespeare’s “moon”], his rebuttal falls upon its sword. The whole point of metaphor is that it has variable, even tiered meanings that can be applied. That is one of the distinctive literary devices poetry enjoys that is only successfully achieved by writers of prose who have a poetic background. Why is this argument relevant in a debate about
attitude? Not to belabor removing the sword, but the whole concept of limits, or lack of them, is attitude. “I can’t” is one attitude; “I can” is yet another. I refer the latter.
 
IX Rebuttal: The only valid point
 
IX.a “Physical law is unaffected by [Con’s] argument,” my opponent concludes. Sorry. “Recaps.” I have occupied 7,000 words in rebuttal to the claim that I have offered but one valid point. Rebuttals are arguments intended to turn away arguments by one’s opponent. Seven of my nine subjects listed, including this ninth, have turned away my opponent’s rebuttals, without adding a single new argument to support his contention as initiator of the debate. Some of these round 2 rebuttals are derived from my first round that have been dropped. Yes, my opponent, as well, has another round to rectify, and well he better.
 
IX.b Part of that “better” must address a proper reflection of my arguments in rebuttal to them, such as his claim, “The only valid point Con has made is that some limits are imposed upon us and can be bypassed.” Note that he emphasized some.I challenge my opponent to define where I said in my round 1 that “some limits” are imposed on us, and not all. Whereas, in my round 1, I argued in I.a that “Many limits are imposed…” However, in round 1, I.b I addedthat “we also impose limits on ourselves.”It’s as additive argument, the both of which fill in ‘all limits.’ As I’ve repeatedly argued, to selectively truncate my arguments, and then rebut the truncations isn’t debate protocol; it’s an uncertain argument that one cannot fill all the holes. The consequence: dropped arguments.
 
X Argument: Thought we’d never get here: “Do or do not. There is no try”
 
X.a I’ve quoted this reply by Yoda to Luke Skywalker often enough to know it is true. True in this sense [I suggest reading it aloud, as previously argued]: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”[1]
 
X.a.1 This statement occurs in the midst of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not expect perfection from his disciples tomorrow. Nor did Yoda. We can be perfect in one thing. Maybe it is waking up from sleep at 6:00 am every morning, beginning tomorrow morning. When are we perfect in performing that one task? When it is habitual enough that we actually do it. Day in, day out. Pick another task. Do that. Eventually, we find perfection in the performance of a number of things. Those things. It is a process. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



[1]Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48

Round 3
Pro
I.
I Rebuttal: Just a little denial
This is not a rebuttal, as it is referring to a part of the debate that was not an argument. As it is not an argument or a source, the only merit it has for the debate is in conduct and spelling/grammar.
~~~
II.
II Rebuttal: “…an countably[sic] infinite sequence”
 
II.a I do not understand what that argument means.

The full quote, since scrolling on a phone sucks with long debates. 

And I is just the beginning of an countably infinite sequence of whole numbers written in the style of the Romans.
This was in response to the title of your rebuttal

I Rebuttal: Alpha is just the beginning of an alphabet
It was meant to illustrate the point that this title doesn't make sense. Also, no "[sic]," unless there is actually an artefact of incorrect language use. Countably is a word that describes infinite. There are two types of infinity. [1]
~~~
III.

In your story, the limit of gravity still existed. Otherwise you would not have fallen. You may have modeled it as no longer existing, but it was still there, in reality. That is the truth. “And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.” [2]
Your belief in a physical limit doesn't affect the existence of the limit.
~~~
IV.
or, not II.b
  An interesting stylistic choice. I do think it’s clever. But subtlety is not what debate is about. If you have a point to make, use plain language that is unambiguous and easy to understand. There aren't any points for wordplay. This isn't to say you can't do what you want, just advice.
~~~
V.
First of all, I'm annoyed that Con misspelled Gendlin several times, as he had the debate right there in front of him and he spelled it correctly in the previous round.

 I could not have said it better, myself, in arguing for declaring limits as nonexistent by my will to change reality.
Your will to change reality operates within the physical laws of the university. Your will to fly will not cause gravity to stop applying to you. Intelligent application of your knowledge of those law will allow you to do things otherwise impossible, like the Wright brothers did. Rather than throwing a bunch of designs in the air, they constructed a wind tunnel to investigate the mechanics of lift and drag. A more accurate and thorough knowledge of their limits was what allowed them to create a plane, not "declaring limits as nonexistent." [3]
~~~
VI.
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.
The only way to not "truncate" your arguments is to copy/paste the whole thing, which is unnecessary since anyone who wants the full context can just scroll back up. The point of the short quote is to provide enough context that the audience can remember which argument/rebuttal I'm referring to. I didn't ignore the rest of argument.
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.”
No matter how many times you list Luke Skywalker as a defeatist in this scene, it doesn't make every "I can't" a defeatist's attitude. We can go back and forth on this all day, but in the end, one example doesn't cover everything. Luke is defeatist because he clearly could and he said he couldn't, not because he said he couldn't.
~~~
VII.
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.
Well then, I’m excited for the big reveal of this next round of “gun fire.”
~~~
VIII.
 It appears my opponent does not appreciate poetry.
The thing about lying in a debate like this is that it's easy to fact check. I literally said in the round before, 
 I love Shakespeare.
If you continue to make blatant lies, it only hurts you. 
Furthermore, the quoted verses don’t contain a metaphor, like you claim. The moon’s phases are literally “changes”. It is literally “inconsistent” as it is constantly changing. There is no metaphor there.
The comparison between the moon and Romeo’s love is also not a metaphor. The difference between metaphor and simile, as everyone learns by high school, is that simile uses words like “like” or “as” to make a direct comparison. In this case, the word “likewise” tips us off to the fact that this is a simile, not a metaphor.
Con continues to criticize my example of placing his name in place of the moon. He completely missed my point, which was that "attitude" no more relates to the passage than "fauxlaw" does. I am not a hypocrite, I was using an obviously stupid example to call out the more subtle but equally fallacious insert made by Con.
~~~
I challenge my opponent to define where I said in my round 1 that “some limits” are imposed on us, and not all.
Ok. 
 Many limits are imposed
This is from the second sentence of Con's I.a in R1.  The word “many” by definition is not “all”.
~~~
X.
I’ve quoted this reply by Yoda to Luke Skywalker often enough to know it is true.
Since when did the number of times quoted affect the truth of a statement? If I get enough people to say “K_Michael is the king of the world,” will it become true? No, it will not. This is invalid reasoning.


Jesus did not expect perfection from his disciples tomorrow.
It doesn't say this in the scripture you cite.
“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.
And yet here Con is putting words in the mouth of Jesus. You have no more right to assume Jesus's beliefs than I do Eugene Gendlin. It's one thing to call me out on something you think is wrong, it's another thing entirely to turn around and do it yourself.
~~~
Arguments: Nothing Con has said so far rebuts the "physical law" argument I made in the first round under Gamma. I only need 1 example to be right, whereas Con has to prove any and all "I can't" statements to be defeatist.

I'm kinda sorry that this debate has been almost exclusively rebuttals, but if I leave any points unaddressed, Con could say, "you didn't refute this," and try to play it as a point in his book.
I did have fun though.
Sources:
[2] Eugene Gendlin, Focusing
Con
I Rebuttal: a little denial denied
 
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[1]], 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 itAll of these intersections of defeat can be impacted by how you go about ‘throwing in the towel’ when life goes awry.”[2] [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.
 
 
 
 



[1]The Chicago Manual of Style, 14thedition, The University of Chicago Press