Latvia vs Lithuania Debating Championship, Morgoth was a Poor Strategist Opcijas

[Elk]

International Champtionship Debate #1

Welcome to the first International Debate between the Latvians and the Lithuanians! I am Elk, the judge of this competition; if you are from the Plaza, you will (currently) know me as Túrin. To start, here are the topic official rules:

===========================

Morgoth was a poor strategist.

Teams

Each country has a team. In the team they have an equal number of main debaters (starters) and an unlimited number of subs. Teams select their captain, who will write the opening post for the team.

Starting the Debate

1. The judge decides on the topic of the debate and announces it in the debate thread. The teams have one week for preparation.
2. After a week, the time counting starts and the proposition team (the hosting team) is expected to post their opening statement within time limit.

The Debate
1. No IC, therefore no ‘spectators’ allowed. All out-of-context posts should be deleted without warning.
2. No editing of posts allowed.
3. After the judge has posted the topic and before posting their first posts, the team captains should post their rosters.
4. The teams post Prop, Op, Prop, Op…
5. It is up to the teams how they organize their arguments, but there are certain rules to be sticked to:

Prop 1st post, Op 1st post
Aim: Outlining Proposing/Opposing team's main arguments. Backing them up as much as space allows. The Opposing team cannot rebutt the arguments put forward in the Proposing team’s first post.
Prop 2nd, Op2nd (also 3rd) Aims: Backing up previously outlined arguments. Rebutting opposing teams arguments. Introducing new arguments. Only two rebuttals allowed in one team’s post. Opponent’s rebuttals can be rebutted.
Prop closing statement, Op closing statement
(Preferably written by the team captain) Aim: Enforce team's arguments. It may be done by summarizing your arguments, by rebutting the last rebuttals of the opponent or in some other way, but no new rebuttals can be made.

6. Colour codes may be used by the team to organize their posts. In this case, the codes should be posted at the beginning of each post. This section is not included in the word count.
7. Rebuttals should be separated from the main arguments. The team may choose whether to include headings “Main argument”, “Closing statement” etc., but headings “Rebuttal #1”, “Rebuttal #2” are required for the purpose of separation.
8. Time limit for the post to appear in the thread is 48 hours. In case a sub is called (which should be done openly in the thread), another 8 hours are added to the time remaining on the clock. The judge is expected to inform the debaters about the date and time their post is due.
9. Word limit is 2000 words for each main post and 500 words for the Closing Statement, excluding colour codes and all the formatting codes, including Headings and quotes.

Judgment

Every post (except the closing statements) is rated in the following categories, 5 point scale (5 - outstanding, 4 -very good, 3-ok, 2-somewhat lacking 1-poor 0-nonexistant)

*Creativity
*Staying on topic
*Team spirit/team unity
*Organisation (how easy it is to follow the author's thought)
*Choice of arguments and rebuttal points.

Plus, each team is rated in the following categories:

*Overall strategy (how well posts were organized to allocage enough space for arguments and rebuttals. How well the chances to rebut opponents arguments and rebuttals were used)
*Overall choice of arguments and rebuttal points
*Strength of the Closing Statement

===========================

To expand a bit on how I'd be judging - the rules are pretty straightforward: The first poster should introduce a number of arguments and support them as thoughroughly as s/he can, the second poster should continue in like fashion, and the 3rd should come in as a 'sweeper' and tie any loose ends, solidify any arguments that might need more support, etc. A strong, authoritative ending should also be included.

But to elaborate on my personal style: I think there are two part of debate, one is logic, the other is passion. Logic is important, I want to see you fully reason out your points. But the other is passion, get into your words, make be believe that you are utterly convinced of their truth. That is the essense of debate, to me. In every one that I have been in, I still believe the side that I argued no matter of the outcome (or maybe it's because I'm stubborn (IMG:http://www.kurbijkurne.lv/forums/style_emoticons/kurb_gaiss/tongue.gif) ).

The first post is due 48 hours from this post. I'm looking forward to it!

(PS: I'm sorry for being late with this, it totally slipped my mind!)

Šo rakstu rediģēja Elk: 27.02.2005 21:26

[Nulukkizdin]

Dear Lithuanian friends! High-honored judge! As the first speaker of Latvian debate team I will present our interpretation of statement “Morgoth was a poor strategist” and some arguments to prove that this statement is correct. I wish luck to our opponents and let the best team win!


Interpretation of topic

The base of all debate is correct understanding of topic. It is vital to comprehend the word ‘strategist’ and term ‘poor strategist’.

Our team is confident that:
Strategy = the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
(Webster dictionary)

Strategist = one skilled in strategy
(Webster dictionary)

We would also like to emphasize, that is is crucial to understand the difference between "strategy" and the term very similar and therefore often mistaken for perfect synonym, yet rahter distinct in meaning - "Tactic".

Tactic = a method of implying forces in combat
(Webster dictionary)

Tactician = one versed in tactics
(Webster dictionary)

The main difference is that strategy involves the “big picture” – overall plan, while tactics are activities specifically created and selected to reach specific and measurable short term goals. It means - when talking about the planning of specific battles, we should be talking about tactics, while referring to "strategy" only when talking about Morgoths Great/general/overall plan.

Next question - who can we call ‘poor strategist’?

Poor = less than satisfactory/insufficient
(Webster dictionary)

It means that we can call somebody ‘poor strategist’ if their strategic skills are less then satisfactory. What is satisfactory? – You would ask. And our team is sure that it is somebody with good strategic skills.
What is more, we must look for this ‘satisfactory’ in the same conditions as ‘poor’ exists. It means that if want to compare ‘a thing’ from Middle-earth to something else, then this ‘something else’ should be also taken from the same imaginary world of Tolkien.

And our team suggests using Valar as sufficient strategists (their actions to reach a goal proved to be very effective) -

The Valar were like architects working with a plan 'passed' by the Government. They became less and less important (structurally!) as the plan was more and more nearly achieved.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

And therefore will prove that Morgoth was a poor strategist.


Main arguments

1. Morgoth never reached his goal, therefore – poor strategist.

It can be seen in the writings of JRRT that Morgoth always wanted to cause decay and destruction. He hated everything involving works of Valar and the most of all wanted to free Arda from everything not concerning him and only him. –

Melkor's final impotence and despair lay in this: that whereas the Valar (and in their degree Elves and Men) could still love 'Arda Marred', that is Arda with a Melkor-ingredient, and could still heal this or that hurt, or produce from its very marring, from its state as it was, things beautiful and lovely, Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

About Morgoth’s ‘big plan’ Tolkien writes:

Morgoth had no 'plan': unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share can be called a 'plan'.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

Did Morgoth ever manage to reach this goal?? No, he didn’t. All his actions to reach it proved to be not effective. He didn’t even get close to the accomplishment of his plan… He was actually in the very beginning stage of achieving something.

Morgoth wanted to destroy all creatures of Iluvatar (save himself of course), even orcs –

Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own 'creatures', such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

Did he accomplish it? No! He didn’t even manage to deal with elves and men! He was very far from achievements. He was poor strategist!

The lack of definite plan and the presence of dominating personal impulse – destruction provoked Morgoth to act chaotically. He never thought of global actions neccessary to reach his goal. His doings were usually instinctive and based on emotions. This can be very well seen in his dealings with Noldor. His plan was to destroy them –

...when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

This means that his strategic talent would become apparent in the way he achieved this. Pity, but he failed! –

And it is said that his hate overcame his counsel, so that if he had but endured to wait longer, until his designs were full, then the Noldor would have perished utterly. But on his part he esteemed too lightly the valour of the Elves, and of Men he took yet no account.
(Silmarillion, Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin)

His emotions dominated his mind and he failed to achieve his goal. His strategic talent proved to be in a low level. In other words – he was poor strategist.


2. Morgoth paid more attention to the planning of following battle than analysis of whole situation.

Morgoth always took care of next battle and did everything to get the best restuls possible, but he often forgot that it is far more important to analyze ‘whole picture’.

To analyze the information regarding the situation is ultimately important; understanding is vital. It is known that Morgoth spent most of time (in fact almost all time) in his fortress in Angband –

He [Manwe], like Melkor, practically never is seen or heard of outside or far away from his own halls and permanent rezidence.
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

That means that he could get information either from his inferiors or by his own knowledge and divination skills.

It has never been stressed that Morgoth would have special divination skills, nor has he ever interpreted Music of Ainur (which would ensure him some knowledge of basic happenings around) too well –

In this way Sauron was also wiser than Melkor-Morgoth. Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of the 'Music' than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with his own plans and devices, and gave little attention to other things. (HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

It means that basically Morgoth got his information from spies and from questioning prisoners and not from other kind of knowledge.

In HoME10 Tolkien says –

No one, not even one of the Valar, can read the mind of other 'equal beings'(All rational minds / spirits deriving direct from Eru are 'equal' – in order and status – though not necessarily 'coëval' or of like original power.): that is one cannot 'see' them or comprehend them fully and directly by simple inspection. One can deduce much of their thought, from general comparisons leading to conclusions concerning the nature and tendencies of minds and thought, and from particular knowledge of individuals, and special circumstances. But this is no more reading or inspection of another mind than is deduction concerning the contents of a closed room, or events taken place out of sight...
(HoME X, Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed)

It means that Morgoth could not get ‘whole picture’ of situation from his prisoners even if he tried to do it (it is known that he tried). This information was therefore incomplete and not too precise. But it means that it was impossible to analyze situation properly.

Morgoth used this information basically to satisfy his curiosity. He didn’t make any step-by-step actions to reach his targets, but simply enlarged his forces hoping, that it would ensure an advantage in the next closest battle. Morgoth’s information was not used to plan long term activities but rather to think about tactical operations in the nearest future. It means that Morgoth didn’t think strategically and was therefore poor strategist!
On thop of that, Morgoth did not bother to leave his fortress to check whether information he had acquired corresponded to the actual situation. This means either Morgoth thought information to play minor role or that he trusted his servants too much. Either way, it shows nothing good about his strategic talent.

I will repeat it once more – Morgoth was far from something we might honestly call a good strategist. Even if he had some great moments in his doings, that doesn’t mean that his strategy was good. Morgoth ultimately failed in reaching his goal. He proved to be poor strategist!