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

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.

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.

~~~

Reality is constant. It doesn't change based on your beliefs.

~~~

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.

~~~

A false belief about the existence of the meteorite won't prevent the meteorite from hitting.

~~~

An accurate belief allows you to change reality more effectively. With enough forewarning, you could do something about the meteorite.

~~~

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.

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:

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

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?)

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." 

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.

~~~

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

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

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.

~~~

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

[1] https://www.debateart.com/rules

[2] Star Wars Episode V, The Empire Strikes Back, lines spoken by Mark Hamill and contextual information.

[3] Carl Sagan, astronomer

[4] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch/asteroids-comets.php

[5]Romeo and Juliet,II, ii, 958-960, William Shakespeare, ca. 1595

I.

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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

The thing about lying in a debate like this is that it's easy to fact check. I literally said in the round before, 

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.

~~~

Ok. 

This is from the second sentence of Con's I.a in R1.  The word “many” by definition is not “all”.

~~~

X.

It doesn't say this in the scripture you cite.

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:

[1] https://youtu.be/s86-Z-CbaHA?t=157

[2] Eugene Gendlin, Focusing

[3] https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1901/wind.cfm

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 it. All 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.