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

[Starlin]

With regard to the Melkor vs. Morgoth question:
We have discussed the problem raised by our opponents and decided that such cautiousness is not really necessary. Firstly, the two names, Melkor and Morgoth, are sometimes used interchangeably (I can provide you with quotes, if you wish). Also, since we are talking from the point of view of Men of Later Ages, Morgoth is simply a name we are more used to, and when we refer to Morgoth it doesn't necessarily mean that we refer to his First Age personality. Therefore the Lithuanian team believes that pre-First Age arguments should be taken into consideration equally with those of the First Age. Of course, it is our venerable judge who should pass the verdict, but for now we are not changing our strategy.

Spoken words - black
Quotes – green
Quote sources – green italics
Emphasis (Spoken words) – black underlined
Emphasis (Quotes) – green underlined
Quotes from the posts by our opponents – orange

Opposition Main Post #2 (LTDK)

Introduction

I am glad to be able to help my team as a substitute for Laiqualasse. Thanks to Elfhild for her first post and to our opponents and the judge for giving us a great chance to turn things over in our minds!

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 weaknesses of his enemies and could use them strategically. In the following post, I will present evidence on Morgoth’s strategic achievements since the days before the creation of Arda until the beginning of the First Age. For the sake of clarity, I will split my main arguments into three parts: one for Ainulindalë, another for the period in Arda before the First Age, and the last for one aspect of Morgoth’s strategy described in “Morgoth’s Ring”.

Main arguments

I. The Creation of Arda: Setting the Scene

Morgoth, then Melkor, was among the mightiest of the Ainur. He was granted by Ilúvatar power and wisdom close to that of Manwë himself, and he also had knowledge in all other arts and crafts:

To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. – Ainulindalë.

His characteristic feature was a lust to create things himself, not only through the will of Ilúvatar. Having this goal, he organized his actions in a way which was the most appropriate in given circumstances:

<…> it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining <…>, for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself.”– ibid.

The goal eventually proved to be far too ambitious, yet power over beings already created he did achieve, primarily in the Music itself:

…many of the Ainur were dismayed and sang no longer, and Melkor had the mastery. – ibid.

So, Melkor managed to overrule the general musical theme of Ainulindalë with that of his own – a huge, even if shortly lived, victory for his part.

When Arda was already created and the Valar descended upon it, Melkor

<…> feigned, even to himself at first, that he desired to go thither and order all things for the good of the Children of Ilúvatar <…>. But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, <…>; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills. – ibid.

This shows two important things: firstly, Melkor desired mastery in the newly created world, and wanted to have subjects; secondly, he already had a plan how to do this. Maybe he did not understand the plan itself, but he intuitively felt what would be some of the most important parts of it – subtlety, deceit and subterfuge. He employed these means throughout his reign in all parts of Arda. Such ‘intuition’ shows that strategy was inherent in his very nature.

II. Within Arda: Strategy of Exploitation

When the Valar had descended upon Arda, there was much work to be done for the convenience of the Children of Eru. Melkor, on the other hand, wished to subdue them to his will as soon as possible, and strove to fulfil this.

Both for Morgoth and for the Valar, the Children were one of the main reasons for descending into Arda, because they were enigmatic. Knowing this affection of the Valar, Melkor drew the conclusion that he could use the Children as either his weapon or his shield:
- weapon, by turning them against the Valar and thus foiling their deepest desires;
- shield, by bringing them close to himself so that he could not be harmed without harming the Children.

For the former case there are several examples in the pre-First Age period. Firstly, it was Melkor who first found the Elves, as written in The Silmarillion, and he knew that Oromë was most likely to hinder his initial desire (to subdue the Eldar to his will). Therefore he devised a cunning plan in order to cause suspicion in their hearts as soon as they see Oromë:

…either he sent indeed his dark servants as riders, or he set lying whispers abroad, for the purpose that the Quendi should shun Oromë, if ever they should meet. – Quenta Silmarillion, Chapter 3.

Who could say this was poor strategy! Melkor did plan ahead and at least temporarily succeeded in blocking his opponents’ actions.
The second example is Melkor’s direct interaction with Noldor in Valinor. By spreading lies among them, he struck the weakest part of the chain – who could have hearkened better than the Noldor, rash and ambitious by their nature? He used the unfavourable circumstances wisely and caused the Noldor to serve his own intentions. In fact, he did the best he could:
* prepared a priori, spreading lies;
* chose the best time for the destruction of the trees, when everybody in Valinor was feasting. Also he chose a perfect weapon – who could destroy the Light better than the mistress of the Unlight herself!
* struck the weakest part of the Noldor-chain, too: stole their jewels and killed their lord. This shows he knew the nature of the Noldor, and with proper early preparation they became perfect soil for accomplishing his own aims.

Even if Melkor had not set all of those factors a priori, he could not have achieved so much without having a plan with core points at the outset. The strategical genius of Morgoth managed to carry out this plan, even if with adding minor details in the process.

As for using the Children as a shield, the Noldor were physically brought close to Melkor. I will not elaborate further on this point since it is pretty straightforward. However, deviating from the Children, we may even claim that Morgoth’s shield was much of the matter of Arda, and this brings us to the third part of my arguments…

III. Shields and Traces: Dissemination of Power

To gain domination over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth - hence all things that were born on Earth and lived on and by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be 'stained'. – HoME X, Myths Transformed, also everywhere below.

Let’s not hurry to claim that Melkor’s becoming wholly physical caused him lots of trouble. According to Tolkien, Melkor

…did this so as to control the hroa, the ‘flesh’ or physical matter, of Arda.

Yes, it was a dangerous attempt, just as later in the analogous case of Sauron and his Ring. In fact, Tolkien calls Arda “Morgoth’s Ring”. But does risk show poor strategy? Not at all! As pointed by the Professor,

Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all 'matter' was likely to have a 'Melkor ingredient', and those who had bodies, nourished by the hroa of Arda, had as it were a tendency, <…> towards Melkor...

Actually, one of the best-known examples is the Orcs. Although the issue of their creation is very complex, it is generally agreed that Melkor was involved in making them so hideous. It is said further in the same text that Melkor’s corrupting always started in the moral level, making the victims believe in him as Lord and causing the corruption of fëa to spread through hroa. Strategy? Definitely, and a good one. Planning ahead, using one’s best methods.

But let’s return to the quote above. By risking, Melkor did that which proved to be disastrous to his own strength, but gained a terrible grip upon the physical world. The latter was infused with ‘melkorness’ and to conquer Melkor one had to fight by physical force and eventually cause enormous material ruin. By incarnating himself, Melkor made Middle-earth his shield, and hindered the Valar in making war upon him, since they did not want to damage Arda. Just as with Sauron’s Ring, in order to destroy Morgoth one had to completely desintegrate the ‘matter’ of Arda. Who can say that all traces of Morgoth have been eradicated? If this is not ‘planning ahead’, than I am Galadriel!

Finally, if we have already touched the material given in Morgoth’s Ring, it also says there that Sauron was first attracted by Melkor because of his apparent will and power … to effect his designs quickly and masterfully. These qualities are definitely those of a great strategist!

Conclusion

Drawing the threads together:

* Judging by the examples in the Ainulindalë, strategy was inherent to Melkor. He thought ahead and was working towards his purpose in the best way he could.
* While the Valar tarried in Valinor, Melkor watched for the Elves and made correct moves to hinder his enemies. He understood that he could use the Elves both as a weapon and a shield, and made this exploitation of the Firstborn possible by striking perfect spots.
* Melkor left ineradicable traces behind him and used the matter of Arda as a shield. In doing this, he prevented the actions of the Valar.

I am confident in telling you – Melkor was a super strategist, and it can be proved by dozens of examples!

__________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

Rebuttal

As the Latvian team has correctly noted, we first have to draw the boundaries of the terms we are discussing. The explanations given by Nulukkizdin are pretty self-explanatory, however, I must note that this is not the only interpretation of ‘strategy’ ant ‘tactic’.

I totally agree that strategy involves the “big picture” – overall plan, while tactics are activities specifically created and selected to reach specific and measurable short term goals. The problem is what we define as ‘the overall plan’ and ‘short term goals’. Nulukkizdin interprets these terms as Morgoth’s Great Plan and specific battles, respectively. I will show that ‘the overall plan’ does not necessarily have to be as long-term as our opponents imagine it.

Again, some definitions:

Strategy – 1. (art of) planning and directing an operation in a war or campaign <…> 3. plan or policy designed for a particular purpose.

Tactic(s) – <…> 2. art of placing or moving fighting forces in a battle

– Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary

The main point our opponents may have missed is that battles are not only about ‘placing and moving fighting forces’. ‘Battle tactics’ is planning how your forces are going to move. ‘Battle strategy’, on the other hand, is a wider term. While the primary goal of ‘tactics’ is to win the battle, ‘strategy’ looks at the aims of the battle itself. Therefore I think that the planning of specific battles refers not only to ‘tactics’, but to ‘strategy’ as well.

Given this, I would like to say that in case of ‘strategy’ we do not necessarily have to look for the ‘ultimate goal’, which Morgoth presumably did not have (as shown in Nulukkizdin’s post). I can just as well analyze Morgoth’s strategical abilities in a smaller span of time. By the way, I have to note that discussing the ‘ultimate goal’ is also irrelevant in the case of the Valar. If The Valar were like architects working with a plan ‘passed’ by the Government, this only proves that there was neither an ‘ultimate goal’ for the Valar. The plan is not theirs, they did not comprehend it fully. Melkor also was a part of Ilúvatar’s plan, so why not include him in the same paradigm as the Valar? Thus, the strategic abilities of both Melkor and the Valar can be assessed on shorter-term goals as well, because both were lacking a fully-comprehensive “Great Plan”.