Kurbijkurne forums: Soli tuvāk fantāzijai

Laipni lūdzam, viesi ( Pieteikties | Reģistrēties )

> Talking about Tolkien - forum rules (noteikumi)

Foruma pamatvaloda – angļu. Ja nepieciešams, palīdzību tulkošanā vari lūgt modiem.

Communication on this forum – basically in English.

Šiame forume bendraujama angliškai.

Käesolevas foorumis toimub suhtlus inglise keeles.

> Latvia vs Lithuania Debating Championship, Morgoth was a Poor Strategist
Elk
iesūtīt 27.02.2005 21:26
Raksts #1


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



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 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
2 Lapas V   1 2 >  
Sākt jaunu pavedienu
Atbildes (1 - 19)
Nulukkizdin
iesūtīt 27.02.2005 22:04
Raksts #2


Studē augstākās pārvērtības
****

Grupa: Izraidītie
Pievienojās: 29.05.04
Kur: Rīga



Greetings!

It is great to see that Debate Championship has been finaly opened and I really hope that Latvians as well as Lithuanians will have some fun and enjoy our first competition!
And it is fantastic that we have such a good judge as famous Elk from plaza! It makes me feel that the judgement will be just and fair!

Main posters of Latvia:
Nulukkizdin Captain
Erasmus
Agronoms

Alternate posters of Latvia:
Alfirin, Nimue, Farliner
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
YaWorm
iesūtīt 28.02.2005 14:29
Raksts #3


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.02.05



Hallo Elk and Latvian debaters. I am YaWorm, captain of the Lithuanian team. I am really glad to be here today and participate in this event. Here is our roster



From the names you see here, YaWorm is the captain (as I have already said), Elfhild, Laiqualasse and Worm are starters and Starlin with Alatar will be acting as subs.

I wish you all to have tons of fun!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Nulukkizdin
iesūtīt 28.02.2005 23:04
Raksts #4


Studē augstākās pārvērtības
****

Grupa: Izraidītie
Pievienojās: 29.05.04
Kur: Rīga



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) -
CITĀTS
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. –
CITĀTS
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:
CITĀTS
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 –
CITĀTS
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 –
CITĀTS
...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! –
CITĀTS
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 –
CITĀTS
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 –
CITĀTS
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 –
CITĀTS
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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 02.03.2005 16:19
Raksts #5


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



Thank you, Nulukkizdin, the Lithuanians have until 23:04 on the 2nd to post their first argument, unless my math is off, which is just might be *pokes months*

Edit: Which is just under 7 hours from now.

Šo rakstu rediģēja Elk: 02.03.2005 16:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elfhild
iesūtīt 02.03.2005 21:20
Raksts #6


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.02.05



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 04.03.2005 14:43
Raksts #7


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



Thank you Elfhild! The Latviants now have until 04.03.2005 21:20 to present their next argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Nimue
iesūtīt 04.03.2005 20:14
Raksts #8


Istari māceklis
*****

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 29.12.03
GP eksperts 2006



Since Erasmus has not shown up this evening and the chance that he will has grown rather miniscule, since our captain Nulukkizdin is absent until the end of the weekend and has left me in charge until then, I feel that it is neccessary for our team to call for substitute and, because of that, require extra time.
If I understand correctly, it means:- our team has time until 4am or 5am next morning to send in the post. (If I have understood the rules correctly, it is going to be my duty to send this post).

Sorry for any inconvenience this might have caused.


Šo rakstu rediģēja Nimue: 04.03.2005 23:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Nimue
iesūtīt 05.03.2005 01:44
Raksts #9


Istari māceklis
*****

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 29.12.03
GP eksperts 2006



First of all we feel the need to bring to the attention of our opponents one rather important fact:
We sincerely apologise that we did not define the name "Morgoth" in our first post, however we had thought it should be obvious, that we are debating about the strategic skills of Morgoth (a person to whom Feanor gave this name and who acted throughout the first age) not Melkor. While Morgoth is always Melkor, the opposite is not so true i.e. - Melkor is not always Morgoth.
We would like the judge to draw the line, but we sincerely think that the topic of this debate is: "Morgoth was a poor strategist" not "Melkor was a poor strategist". We accept your arguments for now, but we would like to politely ask you to concentrate on Morgoth, not Melkor in the future"





Introduction


Honourable judge, our wise opponents and all the readers who have been curious enough to read this topic this far. As my title states, I am merely an apprentice, and I have much yet to learn to grasp the enormous Middle-earth lore - and still, I dare to show up tonight to tell you why our team is still convinced, that the person, who performed notorious deeds in Middle Earth throughout the first age and in this time bore the name of Morgoth was indeed in all his greatness a poor strategist.
The short and simple proof to this would be -Morgoth ultimately failed in achieving the goals he himself had set before him. But if short and simple answer was something we desired, we would not have this debate, now would we?


Importance of defences

One of the principles in the art of war is to always keep in mind the terrain one has to deal with. Unlike almost every other war-wager in history, Morgoth possessed incredible resources in this regard - he had the skill to change the terrain to his liking.

He had already demonstrated this ability on several occasions - he raised the Iron Mountains, he reared Misty Mountains...

Yet for some reason Morgoth did not prepare similar defences in the west, against the sea. Certainly he should have been able to understand, that an attack from that side is possible? In fact, we might even speculate that it was the only side from which a serious attack was possible. Had Morgoth so quickly forgot a lesson he had learned as Melkor in Utumno?
And, as we all know full well - an attack from the sea in the west was not only a possibility - it was a possibility that eventually became a reality...
The host of Valar attacked from the sea.
Feanor attacked from the sea as well.

Well, actually I would be deluding my dear readers, if I so sternly claimed, that Morgoth had prepared absolutely no defences against the attack from the west - after all, that was the exact purpose of Angband fortress.
CITĀTS
And Melkor made also a fortress and armoury not far from the north-western shores of the sea, to resist any assault that might come from Aman. That stronghold was commanded by Sauron, lieutenant of Melkor; and it was named Angband.
(Silmarillion, Of the Coming of the Elves)

So he had a fortress. Great.
Quite a protection from the possible attack of Aman indeed.... Just like Utumno was. Everyone remembers how Valar took Melkor from Utumno, right? Well, obviously everyone but Morgoth himself.

So... how about creating some extra defence lines to prevent enemy from getting to the fortress?

Fingolfin probably missed them when he marched right next to the very gates of the fortress and almost knocked at them:
CITĀTS
Then the Elves smote upon the gates of Angband, and the challenge of their trumpets shook the towers of Thangorodrim
(Silmarillion, Of the Return of the Noldor)

Did Morgoth fortify his defences after this incident, which proved that obviously his very headquarters are tad bit too accessible for enemy forces?
Not really.
Isn't it an obvious proof of a rather lacking strategy? A poor strategy?



The value of risk



All through the history of mankind (and history of Middle-earth is not that much different) we have seen many strategists rise and fall. It is not uncommon for someone to be regarded as good (not poor)strategist even if he sometimes lost his battles and even if he lost the war against impossible odds.

So what is that thing, that makes all the difference between someone who is good strategist, and someone who is not good enough (or, to put it in other words - is a poor strategist).

Guess what? It is the very existence of strategy itself.
The art of war is not unlike a game of chess - you may have to sacrifice some pieces - yet it is always done with a strategy in mind. And you should definitely never be surprised by your opponent, because a good strategist would have foreseen any move an opponent might make, and would have already devised a strategy in his mind to counter each attack his opponent might make.

In a chess game all the information you need is in front of you. In the art of war, however, you also have to be able to gather the necessary information - and as our captain Nulukkizdin already demonstrated in his first post, Morgoth had underestimated the value of intelligence department... But I shall go even further - Morgoth did not fully use even that information, which he obviously should have had, and thus did not adequately assess the risks of his actions, and did not plan actions to prevent a further damage, in case those risks would actually come true.

What exactly do I have in mind you might ask? The answer is rather obvious - he did not foresee the move, which was instrumental to his defeat - Morgoth foolishly hoped that there was no attack, no interference to expect from the Valar.

If there was a being in all the Arda who should have been able to foresee a possibility that Valar-like high spirits might interfere with the destinies of the Arda, it should have been Morgoth - after all, it was no one but him who had set the precedent. Did he really think himself that unique? Well, obviously he did.
CITĀTS
Yet it is said that Morgoth looked not for the assault that came upon him from the West; for so great was his pride become that he deemed that none would ever again come with open war against him. Moreover he thought that he had for ever estranged the Noldor from the Lords of the West, and that content in their blissful realm the Valar would heed no more his kingdom in the world without; for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity are ever strange and beyond reckoning. But the host of the Valar prepared for battle...
(Silmarillion,Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath)

Did Morgoth have a backup plan for such a case?
Had he in all the long years spent preparing and waging this war prepared anything that would continue the fulfilment of his plans (ultimate destruction of everything) even in case Valar took him away again?
As we can see - he did not.
Only a poor strategist would allow such a crucial mistake to take place.

Another aspect that proves that Morgoth risk-evaluation was below acceptable - he was too eager to complete everything he did. That is why he often acted like there's no tomorrow. For example, in the fifth battle in the Wars of Beleriand -

CITĀTS
Then all the hosts of Angband swarmed against them

and
CITĀTS
But even as the vanguard of Maedhros came upon the Orcs, Morgoth loosed his last strength, and Angband was emptied


Risking all you have, while at the same time knowing that if you lose, you will be alone and there will be no army for you anymore... For if all the dragons and balrogs and orcs and trolls would be slain, there would be no army for Morgoth ever, because he could not make any living thing at that time.

So it is rather obvious that Morgoth was not a sufficiently good strategist at all, because there were times where he gained victory only by chance and brutal force, not by his strategic abilities. And if it wasn't for that chance, it is quite possible he would lose everything.

Rebuttal


CITĀTS(Elfhild @ 02.03.2005 21:20)
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


This quote might give a false impression that poor, little, lonely Morgoth was suddenly attacked (and outnumbered many to one) by beings, equal to him in power - a situation, where victory is impossible. We would like to rectify, that it was not entirely so.

Although Morgoth was indeed a Vala and as such equal to them in power, it was not by the Valar themselves he was defeated. The Valar remained in Valinor, even the mighty Tulkas, whom Morgoth feared. What they did was send reinforcements to the Middle-Earth, the so-called Host of Valar in which only Eönwë, the herald of Manwë, was a Maia.

The rest were Eldar:

CITĀTS
But the host of the Valar prepared for battle; and beneath their white banners
marched the Vanyar, the people of Ingwë, and those also of the Noldor who never departed from Valinor, whose leader was Finarfin the son of Finwë. Few of the Teleri were willing to go forth to war, for they remembered the slaying at the Swan-haven, and the rape of their ships; but they hearkened to Elwing, who was the daughter of Dior Eluchíl and come of their own kindred, and they sent mariners enough to sail the ships that bore the host of Valinor east over the sea. Yet they stayed aboard their vessels, and none of them set foot upon the Hither Lands.
(Silmarillion, Of the Voyage of Eärendil and the War of Wrath)

And it were elves that made the army of Morgoth flee, even his reinforcements, the elves chased Morgoth when he fled in terror to his deepest mines, the elves bet his crown into a collar for his neck and chained him with Angainor, the unbreakable chain.



Conclusion

I thank you dear reader for being so patient and actually reading everything before this sentence. I hope, I have shown why our team still believes Morgoth to be a poor strategist I can only hope that you will agree - his pride and his impatience, his inability to grasp the importance of information and analysis, his living like there is no tomorrow - all those are sings of a poor strategy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
YaWorm
iesūtīt 06.03.2005 18:17
Raksts #10


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.02.05



Honourable Judge, and our esteemed opponents. Due to some RL reasons (illness) we have to call a substitute to post second as Laiqualasse will not be able to do that. Starlin will be posting as our second debater. However, we don't need extra time. Thank you for understanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Starlin
iesūtīt 06.03.2005 22:15
Raksts #11


Izrāda pirmās maģijas pazīmes
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 31.01.05



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”.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 08.03.2005 08:51
Raksts #12


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



First of all, my apologies for not posting the deadline in between your posts, I've had a hectic few days with Midterm Exams and moving home for Spring Break and babysitting my niece and nephew.

I've noted the issue raised about Melkor/Morgoth, but I think that the pre-Feanorean coining of 'Morgoth' arguments are still valid. I don't have my books on-hand, but from my recollection of Morgoth's Ring, 'Melkor' is the person of Melkor, and 'Morgoth' or 'the Morgoth' is the full power of Melkor. I believe in Myths Transformed, Tolkien makes a reference to Melkor already progressing toward becoming 'the Morgoth' before the coming of the Elves to Valinor. In disseminating his power, Melkor became Morgoth. Morgoth himself did not lose power, but Melkor the person did, by spreading it out. See what I'm getting at? The two terms are very closely related, speaking indeed of the same person, much like the term "Arda" is seemingly the term for the Earth when in reality it is the term for the Solar System, Imbar or Ambar being the term for the Earth. I've not yet read the arguments, so I don't know who this might help/hinder, but that it my current ruling, unless my memory of Morgoth's Ring proves not to be as good as I thought it was.

Next deadline is: 8.03.2005 22:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
agronoms
iesūtīt 08.03.2005 22:39
Raksts #13


Mācās koptelpas paroles
**

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.01.05



First I want to thank our Judge for shedding some light from above on Melkor – Morgoth issue. If he thinks that these two are essentially the same, we happily agree because such an interpretation makes it even easier for us to prove our point.

_______________________________________________________________


Good evening everyone. I apologize for being late. Here is our third post!

Our first argument was that Morgoth was a poor strategist because he never reached his goal. While it is still debatable if a person can be called poor strategist just because of that, because there are examples in real life of really great strategists who never reached their ultimate goal (our opponents mentioned Napoleon, for example), we must remind everyone that Morgoth cannot be judged on the same grounds as everyone else and even less as anyone else in real life. First, he is Ainu – offspring of Eru’s thought. He was there before Arda was brought into being, he was the greatest created being and second greatest of all (after Eru). As such he is in the essence invincible, he cannot diminish himself unintentionally. Second – in Arda he is Vala. He can’t die in Arda unless the World itself perishes. And in Arda he is in fact the most powerful being of all. Yet, in the end of Silmarillion he is utterly defeated. Even more – he is defeated by Children of Iluvatar alone, unaided by the Valar (unless permission to go to war can be called “aid”). It seems that all Morgoth’s actions in his life were moving in a more or less downward spiral. One doesn’t have to be a good strategist to remain at somewhat constant level in one’s lifetime if the circumstances are good. But if a person can fall from everything to nothing while circumstances are in every aspect more than favourable to him (and I think that we proved that more than necessary, because it is quite obvious to anyone who has read Ainulidale that without Eru’s help all other Ainur are lost if Melkor – Morgoth decides to act against them), there can be no doubt that this person is a very very very poor strategist. It almost seems that being a poor strategist was part of his nature.
P.S.
And if it really was the best he was capable of (as our dear Lithuanian friends told in the conclusion of their second post) it almost makes me want to show some pity for Morgoth.

_______________________________________________________________


Our second argument was about intelligence and planning issues. As we stated previously, Morgoth paid too little (if any) attention to information gathering and after that he paid even less attention to the information he had gathered. We have not found any explicit statement in the books of our beloved professor that Morgoth had poor memory (and if there was one, it would be sufficient argument to call him a poor strategist), so we must conclude that Morgoth’s ignorance was deliberate. Now we could stop here and say that any deliberately ignorant person (in other words – a self-content fool) must be a poor strategist and there is no need for further discussion but we would still like to add a few things to make our argument even more solid than the fastness of Mandos.
As we said – our argument goes that Morgoth paid little attention to information gathering. While there might be situations where information is of no avail, there was some things that he should have comprehended in order to succeed. The first one is explained in our second post by Nimue (the interference from the West which should have been expected by Morgoth but was not), so I will concentrate on the other one. In the very first pages of Silmarillion we can read about Ainulindale – the Music of Ainur (we would have quoted it before but we were not sure if Melkor is Morgoth). I will not quote all the text here, only the most important place.
CITĀTS
The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice, but it seemed that its most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern.


The very piece of information that, if Morgoth had remembered it, would have changed the course of history of Arda beyond recognition (well, yes, this is a speculation, but it is well-founded). Quite foolish of him to forget the Music of the Ainur. A true sign of a poor strategist – failure to distinguish the most vital information (is there any information more vital to anyone than that which comes from The One?).

I will also insert some sub-argument here. Morgoth was too slow to comprehend the lessons learned from his own battles and didn’t use the information he had even for short term advantages. He saw the effectiveness of Cirdan’s fleet. He saw the effectiveness of Eldarin riders. Yet all he did was counter them with Orcs and Balrogs. However after several centuries of no visible success it at last dawned on him

CITĀTS
that the Orcs unaided were no match for the Noldor (Silmarillion, Of the Return of the Noldor)


and he begun to work on some new weapon (of course, it would be too much to ask of him to show himself forth so doubling or even more multiplying his armies’ strength). And after hundred years his weapon appeared - first of the Urulóki, the fire-drakes of the North – Glaurung. Some accomplishment indeed. It took less time for Saruman to breed himself an army of 10000 Uruk-Hai – a better variant of Orcs.


_______________________________________________________________


Our third argument that was brought forth in our second post by Nimue is about importance of defense. We are still confident that the lack of proper defense was cruicial to Morgoth ultimate defeat. I will once more emphasize that Morgoth was capable of creating a proper defense line against the only real threat – the west. Our examples still remain the same – the Iron mountains, the Mountains of mist and Thangorodrim and they are undeniable. There was no excuse (except, perhaps, poor memory or deliberate ignorance) for not creating a proper defense on the coast of Belegaer and Angband was not a proper defense. Nor was Hithaeglir which he raised to hinder Orome before the first age. What kind of weird thinking is that? Of course, we can only guess what Morgoth was thinking, but it seems to be something along the lines “Hmm, I see that one of my pity enemies is riding across my lands and killing my servants at will. Hey! I could raise some mountains to slow him down a bit! You know, just like those that my enemies raised around their land in the west, only smaller, so that he could get over them.” Or maybe he was simply deliberately ignorant (again) or simply did it so that it would seem that he did something about it, showing no characteristics of a good strategist either way.

_______________________________________________________________

The fourth argument of our team is that Morgoth risked too much. I want to remind you that while in a card game you risk all the time, there is still a difference between reckless risk and clever and justified risk. We agree with our opponents that a clever and justified risk can be a sign of a good strategy, but we are confident that Morgoth never showed his risk assessing abilities in a positive way. And one can easily undestand why this was so. Morgoth never risked with his own well being and if he did, he did it unintentionally (and that is a sign of a poor strategist – no foreseeing risks), for example, when Ungolianth overcame him and only by the help of Balrogs he was able to break free. He only risked with the lives of his servants and he didn’t even take loss of them to heart because he didn’t care if they died and made him weaker with their unneeded passing. Which again proves the statement that Morgoth was a poor strategist – wasting his forces just like that.

_______________________________________________________________

Conclusion

As you can see, dear readers and honorable Judge, we have studied Tolkien’s works and learned quite a few things about Morgoth:
All his life Morgoth went from more to less. From freedom he descended into Ea to which he was afterwards bound. From dominion of Arda he went to dominion of Middle-earth only. After dominion of Middle-earth he was imprisoned by beings formerly weaker than him. After that lies were his only refuge. Then his lies were discovered he had to flee and continue his existence in the darkest place of the world while continuously battling even lesser creatures than Valar. And after long years of fruitless battles he was beaten by those same creatures that he despised and hated and was cast out this world.
A little real life comparison springs into mind. Imagine that you have more money than everyone else in the world combined. This money is yours and no one can take it from you by force, only you yourself can spend it. And then you invest that money in many questionable ventures and grow poorer and poorer until you are bankrupted by a group of stock brokers. Are you then a poor economist or what?

_______________________________________________________________

Rebuttal

We agree with our opponents that the term “strategy” is applicable not only to the policies that one designs for achieving his ultimate goal but also to shorter term goals. Yet one must understand that terms “long-term goals” and “short-term goals” are also subjective in regard to the person one refers to. We think that “long term” is essentially the same as “in my lifetime” which in Morgoth’s case means “ever”. On these basis we must also judge the term “short term”. In this case it certainly can not be confined to one battle, no matter how large.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
YaWorm
iesūtīt 10.03.2005 22:35
Raksts #14


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.02.05



Colour code:

Spoken words – Black;
Emphasis (Spoken words) – black underlined;
Quotes – Green;
Quotes’ source – Green, Italics;
Emphasis (Quotes) – green underlined;
Opponents’ words – Orange


Opposition Main Post #3 (LTDK)


Opening Arguments


I salute everyone who has gathered here to watch this debate. Greetings, our esteemed Judge Elk and our opponents from Latvia. We have come here to argue if Morgoth was a poor strategist. I, same as everyone in my team, firmly believe that Morgoth was not a poor strategist. To prove this, I will present few new arguments in my speech. Firstly, I will provide some new definitions that should help to better understand the topic of this debate. After this I will look at two great battles of the First Age: the Battle of Sudden Flame and the Battle of Unnumbered Tears.

Main Arguments


As I will be speaking about the battles of the First Age, I’d like to remind you some definitions and give some new ones.

Rebuttal



Nuluk has said:
Our team is confident that:
Strategy = the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
(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 rather distinct in meaning - "Tactic".
Tactic = a method of implying forces in combat
(Webster dictionary)


I must say that you have supported your side very well, BUT… This term doesn’t mean only one’s ability to devise good plans towards a goal. Let me give you full definition of the same word from the same dictionary:

Strategy:

1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...ary&va=strategy, my emphasis )


As you can see, the term ‘strategy’ has much broader meaning than that stated by our honourable opponents. Therefore, we think that the fact that Melkor didn’t achieve his final goal is not enough to say that he was a poor strategist.

End of Rebuttal


Now here is another definition that I wanted to present before moving on my other arguments:

Poor

1 a : lacking material possessions b : of, relating to, or characterized by poverty
2 a : less than adequate : MEAGER b : small in worth
3 : exciting pity <you poor thing>
4 a : inferior in quality or value b : HUMBLE, UNPRETENTIOUS c : MEAN, PETTY (ibid, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...tionary&va=poor )


So, if we agree that Morgoth was a poor strategist, we must agree that his skills were ‘less than adequate’. But I shall never say so! Morgoth showed a great skill when forcing his enemies to distrust each other (like in the case with the Elves) and separate from each other. The latter was perfectly done in the Battles of Beleriand. As we all know, after the Dagor Aglareb, the princes of the Noldor have set the Siege of Angband. But because of the strategic skills or Morgoth it was broken in

Dagor Bragollach

In my opinion, this battle (along with Nirnaeth Arnoediad) was one of the best examples of Morgoth’s strategic abilities. First thing he did, he set forth, when ‘the watch-fires burned low, and the guards were few; on the plain few were waking in the camps of the horsemen of Hithlum’ (The Silmarillion, Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin). He used the factor of surprise very well here. But you cannot say that he wasn’t prepared for this battle. In the Silmarillion it is said:

For Morgoth had long prepared his force in secret, while ever the malice of his heart grew greater, and his hatred of the Noldor more bitter; and he desired not only to end his foes but to destroy also and defile the lands that they had taken and made fair. 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. (The Silmarillion, Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin)

One could say that the last sentence of this quote proves that Morgoth was a poor strategist. But I don’t agree that it does so. Morgoth didn’t have the gift of foresight and he could not tell at that time that he needed more strength. It became clear only after some time. I am sure that if Morgoth could see the future, he would have prepared a greater army. And yet, this army was greater than the Noldor ever imagined. Don’t believe me? Let me give you a proof from the Silmarillion itself:

Then suddenly Morgoth sent forth great rivers of flame that ran down swifter than Balrogs from Thangorodrim, and poured over all the plain; and the Mountains of Iron belched forth fires of many poisonous hues, and the fume of them stank upon the air, and was deadly. […]Thus began the fourth of the great battles, Dagor Bragollach, the Battle of Sudden Flame.
In the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Noldor had never before seen or imagined. (ibid)


Because of the impetuosity of Morgoth’s attack, the Eldar could not help each other and were defeated. And you, our honourable opponents, still say that he was a poor strategist?

Not long after the Dagor Bragollach, the Easterlings have entered Beleriand. Maedhros made an allegiance with them, because he knew that the Eldar are still weak and not ready for another battle if Morgoth strikes again. Later this decision proved wrong, as it was a part of the plan of Morgoth. But I’ll talk about it in another part of my argument.

Nirnaeth Arnoediad

This was the Fifth Battle of the Wars of Beleriand. Before this battle, the Eldar made a union, because they knew that sooner or later Morgoth will strike again.

But Maedhros made trial of his strength too soon, ere his plans were full-wrought; and though the Orcs were driven out of all the northward regions of Beleriand, and even Dorthonion was freed for a while, Morgoth was warned of the uprising of the Eldar and the Elf-friends, and took counsel against them. Many spies and workers of treason he sent forth among them, as he was the better able now to do, for the faithless Men of his secret allegiance were yet deep in the secrets of the sons of Fëanor. (ibid)

And yet, previous deeds of Morgoth didn’t let them to unite all the forces they had. Why was that? I think you remember the Oath of Fëanor? It didn’t let his sons to unite their forces this time. How? For example, King Thingol of Doriath did not wish to give aid to the sons of Fëanor because they’ve tried to take the Silmaril from him, Orodreth did not join the forces because of the previous deeds of Celegorm and Curufin and so on.

Morgoth knew about this union, but he also knew how to use these cross-purposes. He tried to force Fingon’s advance by sending some riders with a body of Gelmir. Here is a quote showing how this strategic move helped him to win the battle:

Then the Captain of Morgoth sent out riders with tokens of parley, and they rode up before the outworks of the Barad Eithel. With them they brought Gelmir son of Guilin, that lord of Nargothrond whom they had captured in the Bragollach; and they had blinded him. Then the heralds of Angband showed him forth, crying: 'We have many more such at home, but you must make haste if you would find them; for we shall deal with them all when we return even so.' And they hewed off Gelmir's hands and feet, and his head last, within sight of the Elves, and left him.
By ill chance, at that place in the outworks stood Gwindor of Nargothrond, the brother of Gelmir. Now his wrath was kindled to madness, and he leapt forth on horseback, and many riders with him; and they pursued the heralds and slew them, and drove on deep into the main host. (ibid)


The hosts of Fingon were drawn forth and the battle began on a time that was not good for the Eldar. It is very possible that Men and Elves would have won the battle if not one thing. As it was said before, Maedhros had made an allegiance with the Easterlings. This was a part of Morgoth’s plans. Once again he had used a powerful weapon of betrayal. The Easterlings have betrayed the Eldar and the battle has been lost.

Yet neither by wolf, nor by Balrog, nor by Dragon, would Morgoth have achieved his end, but for the treachery of Men. In this hour the plots of Ulfang were revealed. Many of the Easterlings turned and fled, their hearts being filled with lies and fear; but the sons of Ulfang went over suddenly to Morgoth and drove in upon the rear of the sons of Fëanor, and in the confusion that they wrought they came near to the standard of Maedhros. (ibid)

As it is said in the Silmarillion, the victory in the Nirnaeth was a fulfilment of his plans:

Great was the triumph of Morgoth, and his design was accomplished in a manner after his own heart; for Men took the lives of Men, and betrayed the Eldar, and fear and hatred were aroused among those that should have been united against him. From that day the hearts of the Elves were estranged from Men, save only those of the Three Houses of the Edain. (ibid)

Closing statements


I have spoken mainly about two battles: Dagor Bragollach and Nirnaeth Arnoediad. Both of them Morgoth had won, thanks to his strategic abilities. The Battle of Sudden Flame has been won because of the speed of the assault and the fact of surprise. The Battle of Unnumbered Tears has been won because of the great strength of his armies and the treachery of Men. I firmly believe that these facts show that Morgoth was a great strategist. Thank you all for listening.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Nulukkizdin
iesūtīt 12.03.2005 21:45
Raksts #15


Studē augstākās pārvērtības
****

Grupa: Izraidītie
Pievienojās: 29.05.04
Kur: Rīga



Closing Satement

Dear friends! I have enjoyed this debate from its very beginning till the end and the time has came to sum-up everything written here. We are trying to bring to light a question concerning Morgoth’s strategic talent, to perceive whether he was poor strategist or not. And now, in the very end of all this, I can proudly say that we have managed to reach a certain conclusion – Morgoth was a poor strategist and there can be no doubt.

Definitions

Starting from the first post our team has emphasized how important it is to construe the topic correctly. Middle-earth is different from our world and we are talking about Morgoth – the second greatest power (after Eru) in Arda, and therefore it was vital to choose the most appropriate definition.
Our opponents agreed that ‘poor’ = ‘less then adequate’, in other words ‘less than satisfactory’. But they remarked that our definition of ‘strategy’ is deficient and I utterly disagree with them! I am absolutely confident that our definition is good enough and completely accords with the doings of Morgoth in professor’s imaginary world.
Furthermore, recognizing that the explanations of one term cannot be diametrically opposed, it is enough to prove that one of these explanations is wrong and the assumption will come to naught.
Besides, even if we used this ‘extended definition’ presented by Lithuanians, we still come to incontestable final view – Morgoth was a very, very poor strategist!

Arguments

1. Morgoth never reached his goal; he didn’t get even close to reaching it. In comparison, Valar almost reached it, Tolkien himself said so. It means that Morgoth was much worse strategist than Valar. And if we take Valar strategic skills as adequate, Morgoth seems to be poor strategist.
Why do I compare Morgoth and Valar? Why not! Even our opponents agreed to compare him with his enemies. And what can be better than to search for ‘satisfactory’ among beings similar to Morgoth himself – among Ainur!?

2. Morgoth paid too little attention to information gathering. You cannot call somebody a good strategist if his impulses overcome counsel. And Morgoth was exactly such kind of person (as it was mentioned in the Silmarillion). He didn’t use to analyze situation; he preferred brutality and relied on the might of his original powers. In lieu of careful planning he chose to risk. And he failed; failed because of lack of strategy.

3. Morgoth ignored the significance of defense. Yet again he didn’t use all his potential to get the best results. He could easily build some defense lines to protect his stand but he didn’t; and was crashed by the host of the Valar. Good strategist? Not at all!

There are quite a lot of reasons to call Morgoth not sufficient and there are actually none to call him sufficient. Absurdity how he utilized his natural greatness is simply amazing! How can you call a person who acted instead of thinking a good strategist? He was very, very poor strategist!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 14.03.2005 16:12
Raksts #16


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



*Head spins* Once more I must ask apology in not getting here, but I was on spring break and my week was about as hectic and random as I could possibly imagine it. Unless I am mistaken, we are waiting only for the Closing Statement post from the Lithuanians' and then the judgement, which will take a few days, I'm not sure exactly how long. Apparently I have a paper due in 1 week, so I'll try to be as prompt as possible with you guys. 1 paper and 2 debate judgements to do...*head spins*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
YaWorm
iesūtīt 14.03.2005 21:46
Raksts #17


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 19.02.05



Closing Statement


Greetings for the last time in this debate! We have argued whether Morgoth was a good strategist or not. Despite of how hard have our opponents tried to persuade us that this is not true, we still firmly believe that Morgoth was one of the best strategists ever.

Summarizing Elfhilde


Elfhilde started presenting our arguments with an introduction to Starlin’s and Worm’s posts. She briefly explained what was Morgoth’s goal and deeds before and during the First Age, but she left the main part to the second and third debaters. Elfhilde stated that the main reasons of Morgoth’s successful strategy were:
• well chosen places for his strongholds;
• he was never lost in any situation;
• he knew how to split his enemies apart and makes them to fight each other.

Summarizing Starlin


Starlin developed the arguments about Morgoth’s strategic abilities from the beginning of the Ea and until the First Age. She made the following arguments proving that Morgoth was indeed a great strategist:
• strategy was inherent to Melkor;
• he chose the right time and allies to kill the Two Trees of Valinor and make the Elves distrust the Valar;
• he used Arda as a shield against the Valar.

Summarizing Worm


She spoke about Morgot’s strategies during the First Age, namely Dagor Bragollach and Nirnaeth Arnoediad. She presented few strategies, used by Melkor/Morgoth all the time:
• the swiftness of a good prepared assault to the enemies;
• infiltrating of his own servants into the enemies’ armies;
• the fact that one kindred of the Children did betray the other to help achieve Morgoth’s goals.

I have pointed out the main arguments why Morgoth cannot be called a poor strategist. I cannot even imagine how anyone could doubt it after so many proofs! Therefore, I truly believe that the judge will make a right decision and declare that we won this debate!

I am just kidding, honourable judge and my fellow Latvian debaters! I have really enjoyed participating in this event and I hope that we will have a right judgement very soon. Thank you all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 21.03.2005 19:29
Raksts #18


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



Hello everyone. I apologize (yet again!) for being so tardy here, I was thrown quite the load last week. Luckily, my paper is now done and handed in, so I should have much more time! I will do my best to have your judgement up promptly. Hopefully by Wednesday evening (Thursday morning for you).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Elk
iesūtīt 31.03.2005 00:05
Raksts #19


Cep speķi Dūdijam
*

Grupa: Biedri
Pievienojās: 20.02.05



Latvia 1: Nulukkizdin, 19
Very good job, Nuluk! You have the gift of strong logical reasoning. You open well for your team. I liked how youstarted by defining the terms and telling how your team interpreted that topic. And you two main arguments are interested and well-begun, I’m eager to see how your teammates continue them. The only big detraction from your post is that you seem to rely on quotes and allow them to speak for you too much. Quotes should be used, no doubt about that, but a person’s own logical reasoning and arguments should be the focus of the post.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard, defining terms and using sound logic. Not bad, but not groundbreaking.
Staying on Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - You bring in quotes and define terms that your team will use, but all in all I think it’s hard for a first poster to show much ‘team unity’, as they are setting the stage. Perhaps a bit more elaboration on how an argument will be expanded upon by teammates.
Organization - 4 - Very good here, defining terms and then moving into arguments, though I think that it would have helped your post if you switched the order of arguments, having the ‘What he paid attention to’ before the ‘He didn’t manage it’. I think that they would build more on each other that way.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - You make good arguments, but you don’t fill them in all the way. Flesh it out some more, convince me, don’t just drop quotes with little commentary, I’ve seen them all before. Also, I think that you could have made a very good point with the quote which says Morgoth had no plan - a good strategist needs a plan, and Morgoth had none, I think you would have done well to stress that point.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 1: Elfhild, 19
Another excellent opener, good job Elfhild! Your post flowed very well, I though, and there was a passion in it. You went beyond using quotes and expanded your reasoning and logic to convince me. I like how your team split up the arguments, but I think that there might be a bit of a hard time ahead for you to prove some of them. It’s easy to say that Morgoth was planning on this or that, but it’s harder to prove it, I’m not convinced that Morgoth was planning on estranging the Noldor from the Valar so that the Noldor would follow him to Beleriand. You make interesting arguments, but they need some more support than you’ve gave them.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - You incorporated more leads into your teammates’ arguments here and there, but you did not do as much term defining
Organization - 4 - I think you had excellent organization, but I’m hesitant to give a perfect for this part, there’s always little things which can be changed or fixed.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - There are some other arguments which you might have employed to better use. I’ve debated this same topic once before (long before), and there are some better ideas to use, I think.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Latvia 2: Nimue, 18
Very good post, you bring up some strong arguments, and continue that which Nulukkizdin began. The importance of defenses was a bit of a weaker point, in my opinion, because how is he supposed to guard against the Valar? You argue that he should have, and that is good, but I think to adequately handle that point, you should give at least one possibility of how he might accomplish that. Your other point, about the risk, was well done, your explained what you mean thoroughly and then brought in your supports. Be careful about just dropping quotes with minimal commentary though, I’ve seen the quotes plenty of times, it’s your spin on it which makes the difference. About your rebuttal, it works, but I do not think Eonwe was the only Maia, in other versions it is the ‘Children of the Gods’ who lead the Host of the West (Fionwe among them). So while you are right that it is not Valar, it is more than just Elves.

Creativity - 3 - No breakthrough arguing style.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - I don’t think you really did too much work in
Organization - 4 - Excellent.
Choice of Arguments - 3 - Your first argument could have been done better or replaced in favor of something else, and the second was a very good one to include. Your rebuttal worked, but I think another point could have been chosen to better effect.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 2: Starlin, 20
You start….interestingly. Nulukkizdin had already given a late quote saying that Morgoth had no plan, and you say he had. This can score very high on the creativity and choice of arguments section depending on how you support it. And in your case, I think you did a very good job spinning off Melkor as someone with strategy. You clearly labled out your sections and handled them well, in addition to the rebuttal. What I would caution against is the use of lists, while sometimes they are effective, I think that paragraph format is generally more persuasive.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - Not tons of work here, there was some, but to give a higher score I’d want to see more than you did.
Organization - 4 - The only complain I have is putting the rebuttal at the end, I think it should come before the conclusion. Rebuttals help you make your own point as well.
Choice of Arguments - 5 - Very good work, they were interesting and effective.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Latvia 3: Agronoms, 21
Very good wrap to your team’s arguments! You took the arguments, explained them, fleshed them out, and nearly wrapped up each one and send it off. If you don’t understand that horrible analogy - you categorically finished each argument with a flourish. Well done! The only thing I really have to complain about it that you used some big paragraphs, break them up a little bit, if nothing else than for the ease of the reader. You have the arguments well organized, now organize them within the sections themselves.

Creativity - 4 - A bit different, I think, a good logical reasoning, as opposed to quote-and-run. You didn’t just argue your points, you compared them and explained them well, it was a style I don’t see often.
On Topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 4 - Good, I think. You took the arguments of your teammates and expanded upon them and finished them well. Just be a bit more explicit, I think, tell who argued what, etc.
Organization - 4 - Well organized, but like I mentioned above, just do it within the sections a bit more as well.
Choice of Arguments - 4 - Not much ‘selection’, persay, but the effect of your arguments and summaries was very good.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Lithuania 3: YaWorm, 18
Good argument, Yava. Your analysis of the two battles - Bragollach and the Nirnaeth Arnoediad - was in depth and insightful. I thought that you argument about a battle which Melkor lost was a bit dangerous, but you worked with it well and handled it efficiently. But be careful about shedding any negative light on someone you are trying to defend.

Creativity - 3 - Pretty standard.
On topic - 5 - Perfect.
Team Spirit - 3 - There was not as much here as I was expecting, you didn’t reference your teammates’ work as much, and you have two fully new arguments.
Organization - 3 - Good, but I think it could be better. Your post was somewhat chopped up, I think, with long quotes separating shorter commentary sections. You should reverse that - shorter quotes (where possible) and more logical elaboration.
Choice of Arguments - 4 - Good work, I think, looking at some specific examples, though other battles might be better to utilize in a positive spin, for Melkor lost one of the battles you spoke of and nearly lost the other.

~~*~~ ~~*~~ ~~*~~

Totals:

Latvia:
Nuluk: 19
Nimue: 18
Agronoms: 20

Overall Strategy: 5
Team Unity: 4
Closing: 4

I thought that the Latvians were consistent in their position that Melkor was a poor strategist. They used some strong arguments and hammered them home. And I believe that they showed more cohesion than did the Lithuanians. The closing statement was effective, a good summery and explanation of team arguments and strategy and positions. Well done Latvians!

Lithuania:
Elfhild: 19
Starlin: 20
YaWorm: 18

Overall Strategy: 4
Team Unity: 3
Closing: 4

I think that Lithuania pursued a good strategy, but that when looked at in a broad perspective, there were arguments which could have been omitted in favor of other, stronger arguments. Also, they showed a bit less ‘teamwork’ than the Latvians, some of their points seemed to be disconnected from the rest of their team. Their closing was also an effective summary of their posters, though like I mentioned earlier, I think that lists should be avoided most of the time. Breaking and numbering or bulleting sections is different, but just listing lends itself to less convincing rhetoric.

Latvia: 70
Lithuania: 68

Congrats to the Latvians!

This debate was close in the score, and indeed, the minor difference in the score accurately reflects how close the teams were. I think you all did a marvelous job, it was a very interesting debate to read through!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu
Nulukkizdin
iesūtīt 31.03.2005 06:41
Raksts #20


Studē augstākās pārvērtības
****

Grupa: Izraidītie
Pievienojās: 29.05.04
Kur: Rīga



Yay! We did it, we did it!!! w00t.gif Thankyou, Nimue and Agronom! You were excellent and togather we did it! Once more, WE DID IT! grin.gif And i can't forget the help of other team members, they know what they did and it was great as well! smile.gif

And my dear Lithuanians, it was fun to debate with you! You were tough! When I learned the topic I thought - "Eh, that's easy! Of course it is clear to everyone that Morgoth is poor strategist.." But you almost proved that I'm wrong.. Well done! smile.gif


Elk, thanx for your judgement! And was it so hard to decide that Kurbijkurne team is the best? grin.gif tongue.gif

Šo rakstu rediģēja Nulukkizdin: 31.03.2005 06:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Citēt rakstu

2 Lapas V   1 2 >
Atbildēt pavedienāSākt jaunu pavedienu
100 lietotāji/s lasa šo pavedienu (100 viesi un 0 anonīmie lietotāji)
0 biedri:

 



RSS Lo-Fi versija Pašlaik ir: 25.02.2024 01:54