View source for Not everybody is a game-changer, but everybody can make a game-changing impact

{{a|shitmaxim|}}Let’s put this one through the syllogistic wringer. This means one of two things, either:
===Not everyone ''is'' a [[game-changer]], but everyone ''can be'' a [[game-changer]]===
What use is someone who ''could'' be, but eventually ''isn’t'', a [[game-changer]]? And if we are being [[deterministic]] about it — something the [[JC]] is not usually minded to do, except when proving a point like this one, but still — if it turns out you ''aren’t'' a [[game-changer]] now, then it was as true then as it is now, that you were ''never'' going to be one: you just didn’t know it. In which case, was it ever really true that you ''could'' be a [[game-changer]]? We say no.

===[[Game-changer]]s and game-changing contributions===
If not that, then it must seek to draw a distinction between a “[[game-changer]]” and a “person who makes a game-changing contribution”. But the latter seem, to your correspondent, to be the very definition of the former. Building on our previous learnings, we can extract the following:

:P1 Not everybody is a [[game-changer]].
:P2 Everybody can make a game-changing contribution.
:P2(a) To make a game-changing contribution is to be a game-changer.
:P2(b) A person who ''can'' be a game-changer, deterministically, ''will'' be a game-changer.
:P2(c) A person who, deterministically, ''will'' be a game-changer, ''is''  a game-changer. 
:C Not everybody is a [[game-changer]], but everybody is a [[game-changer]]

{{Sa}}