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

[Elfhild]

Spoken words - black
Quotes – green
Quote sources – green italics
Emphasis (Spoken words) – black underlined
Emphasis (Quotes) – green underlined

Opposition Main Post #1 (LTDK)

Introduction

Highly esteemed judge, worthy opponents and all the listeners who have come here from afar! We’re here to debate whether Morgoth was a poor strategist or not. Our opponents, Latvians, have already expressed their opinion on this matter, stating that Morgoth was not a good strategist. Conversely, we strongly believe that he was and indeed we marvel at how good the evil Vala was at planning his moves and thinking about ‘tomorrow’. Tomorrow always comes… and Morgoth was a being who knew that all too well, which is why he was always wisely planning ahead unlike his enemies.
I will now explain why we believe so. First, I will demonstrate that the topic statement itself contains relativity and thus it must be additionally treated by comparing and contrasting the strategies of Morgoth and his enemies. Consequently, I will provide you with some proofs that Morgoth’s enemies, namely the Valar, Maiar and the Children of Ilúvatar, were worse strategists, taking you through the history of Arda before the First Age and during it. Later in this debate my teammates will develop these arguments further, hopefully leaving no more doubt in your minds that Morgoth was a good strategist.

Main arguments

Relativity within the topic statement

Firstly, I would like to note that whenever assuming that someone or something is good or bad, we must have something to compare it with – and that ‘something’ is a point of reference.

A thing cannot be good or bad all on its own. Speaking in ordinary terms, if you say that chocolate with nuts is tasty, you actually deduct the statement from the fact that (e.g.), in your opinion, chocolate with nuts is tasty comparing to asparagus. Therefore, in this rather Arda-unrelated example asparagus is the point of reference.

Taste is a very slippery subject and, thank goodness (or Elkness!), we are not going to need to deal with it in this debate. Quite the contrary, the matter of Morgoth being a good strategist is plain and can be logically proved: he was a good one because he was far better in strategizing than all other beings, all the inhabitants of Arda being the reference point. Even if there were one or two persons who were better strategists than Morgoth (which I highly doubt), the Vala would still be ‘good’ – note that there are no superlatives in the statement “Morgoth was a poor strategist”, therefore we are not talking about the ‘best’ or the ‘worst’.
This makes it even easier for us to prove our undeniable truth!

All the time I have been driving at one important matter on which I and later my teammates are going to concentrate on: Morgoth was a better strategist than his enemies were, therefore he was a good one. ‘Enemies’ in this case could be roughly split into two significant parts:
1) Valar and Maiar;
2) Eldar and Atani;
The strategic skills of the enemies are the point of reference we will use.
The Valar and the Maiar were Morgoth’s most powerful enemies, but alas! despite their numbers (Morgoth was only one facing all the other Valar!) and wisdom, they failed to surpass Morgoth in his mighty skills of strategy and thus much evil happened in Arda. This is mostly seen in the events before the First Age and in some of the First Age itself.
The Elves and Men were much weaker than Valar and Maiar, however, they were the main figures of the war against Morgoth in the First Age. If it were not for the Valar, who suddenly appeared out of nowhere, Eldar and their mortal allies would have been utterly defeated thanks to Morgoth’s strategy. Actually, Morgoth’s concerning the Children of Ilúvatar was even more complex, as will be shown by my colleague.

Pre-First Age strategy

Morgoth demonstrated amazingly good (and successful) strategy from Ainulindalë till the beginning of the First Age. Just think about it: the Ainur came to Arda and started their labours, creating the environment and preparing everything for the coming of the Children of Ilúvatar. However, they only thought about the near future and, unlike Melkor, they did not think about what would happen afterwards and what they could do to affect the future development of the history of Arda so that it comes to their benefit. To say the truth, they could have even made some plan to stop Morgoth’s malice from spreading in Arda!

Indeed from the very beginning it was a disadvantage for Melkor that he was the only one of a different mind among all the Ainur and first it was he alone who disturbed the harmony of the Music of Ainur. However, throughout the years before the First Age he worked hard to reduce this disadvantage by finding allies. For example, in the making of Arda he endeavoured to draw Ossë to his allegiance, promising to him all the realm and power of Ulmo, if he would serve him (The Silmarillion, Valaquenta). He didn’t succeed in that, but still others he corrupted <…> to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Melkor didn’t just go here and there rashly destroying all the works of the Valar. He was looking for allies, and that is already good strategy!

Another significant strategic movement made by Melkor was fortifying himself in Middle-earth, literally in the middle of the world where all the events took place – not in some far place like Valinor on the edge of the world! After the Valar have done their work creating everything in Arda, they rather seem to be passive spectators, whereas Melkor is a participant who is making plans and strategy. His excellent strategy is obvious at the time when the Darkening of Valinor draws near, when he actually sets the soil for all the events of the First Age. By his secret cunning labours while he dwelt in Valinor he achieved a split between his enemies and left an ineradicable trace behind him. My teammate will explain this in detail, and now I must move on to…

…the turbulent First Age

The First Age is actually the period of Arda’s history in which Morgoth’s strategic talent is revealed to us in all its might. Morgoth’s brilliant idea was to deal with the two kinds of enemies one by one. As I said, before the rising of Sun and Moon he prepared the soil for everything that happened afterwards to unfold. Many of the Eldar, mostly Noldor, left Valinor and went to Middle-earth. Without the help and support of the Valar, they were here much easier to defeat. In fact, Morgoth almost achieved this part of his plan.

It is tempting to believe that Morgoth was a poor strategist because he lost in the end, however, the fact that he caused a big headache for the Valar shows that he knew the weakness of his enemies and could use them strategically. If we said that Napoleon was a poor strategist because he failed in the Russian campaign and afterwards, we would unjustly underestimate the evidence of Toulon or Austerlitz. Just like Napoleon, Morgoth was no poor strategist!

Now in Of the Beginning of Days in the Silmarillion it is said:

<…> since they [the Valar] understood not fully that theme by which the Children entered into the Music, none of the Ainur dared to add anything to their fashion. For which reason the Valar are to these kindreds rather their elders and their chieftains than their masters; and if ever in their dealings with Elves and Men the Ainur have endeavoured to force them when they would not be guided, seldom has this turned to good, howsoever good the intent.

Who could have thought?! By starting a conflict between the Eldar and the Valar, by driving the Noldor from Valinor and finally having war against them Morgoth was actually both manipulating and risking!

He was risking because he knew that meddling with the Children of Ilúvatar might turn to no good. He also knew that the Valar could suddenly come from the West and defeat him. One always needs to risk more or less, even if he or she is a really good strategist. This could be roughly compared to playing cards: no matter how good your strategy is, you are still risking a lot!

On the other hand, Morgoth was manipulating (a sign of well-thought-out strategy!), because he knew that the Valar would not want to interfere in the deeds of Noldor; for several hundreds years this strategy worked very well. While content with the Valar sitting in Valinor behind their thick fences and high Mountains, Morgoth could work on strategizing for the war with the Noldor itself.

Here we touch another important subject: battles. If Morgoth had been a poor strategist, he would have struck too soon or too late. But he didn’t, except for one or two instances when he made a mistake (hey, even Napoleon made mistakes!). One by one he took the strongholds of Elves in Beleriand. He used dragons and Balrogs, and his orcs multiplied. Another important achievement made by him was corrupting Men to his service. Where were the Valar at the moment? How come they missed the coming of Men and thus most of the mortals were turned to evil? It was so because Morgoth was ever making plans for the future, whereas the Valar were not.

Captain Worm will elaborate on Morgoth’s strategy in the First Age, and I, having outlined what I and my teammates strongly believe, will not take any more of your time.

Conclusion

I have just listed out the main reasons why our team is sure about Morgoth not being a poor strategist at all. He was thinking about the future from the very beginning when he started looking for allies. From then on, his strategy was ever more well-considered. He wisely chose his strongholds and he was never lost in any situation, namely the difficult (for him) time when he was in Valinor under the vigilance of the Valar. Not only did he succeed in deceiving the Valar by putting on a fair cloak, but also his deliberate works done while he was in this ‘prison’ succeded in splitting his enemies and making the situation favourable to him to make war against the Eldar alone. Most importantly, it is obvious that the Valar were much worse strategists than Morgoth was. Alas that they never made plans to stop the evil of Morgoth!
Therefore, I see no way in which Morgoth could be called a poor strategist. He was a genius, and he was one of the greatest beings of Arda – the vastness of his works speaks for itself!