Resolved: Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship into Moria.
Debate Rounds (5)
Frodo: the Ringbearer, the son of Drogo.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.
Fellowship: the party of nine, composed of an elf, a dwarf, 2 men, a wizard, and 4 hobbits.
Moria: the system of mines constructed by Durin and his people, lying under the Misty Mountains.
Observation 1: Books, not movies.
Although this is under the category 'movies', we will be looking from the perspective of the books, as they had the closer connection to the author, J.R.R. Tolkien, and thus will be more relevant.
Observation 2: Not Frodo's perspective.
As we have the books, wThis House: the United States Federal Governmente have the choice of hindsight, and so we will be looking at the perspective of hindsight, and not Frodo's perspective.
Disadvantage 1, or a disadvantage of entering into Moria: Gandalf died/suffered.
It was a result of leading the Fellowship into Moria that they aroused the armies of Moria, and the Balrog. This caused Gandalf to suffer, and to die, although he was resurrected into the White Wizard. This leads me to my next disadvantage:
Disadvantage 2: Lost time:
Even though Gandalf revived, the Fellowship still lost precious time by his absence and the delay through Moria. This was dangerous to their mission, which in turn leads me to my last disadvantage. Furthermore, if they had not lost that time, and destroyed the Ring earlier, the Battle of Minas Tirith would have come to much fewer losses on the side of the defenders, especially as the Nazgul would have been destroyed with their master.
Disadvantage 3: Only 1 mistake:
Of course the Fellowship did accomplish their mission but....
Sub-point 1: Unnecessary loss.
Because of this lost time, the Fellowship suffered unnecessary losses, such as the death of Boromir and others, as pointed out in Disadvantage 2.
As a result of the first two disadvantages, the Fellowship had only to make one mistake, and all would be lost. Fortunately, this did not happen, and so their mission was accomplished. It could have been otherwise.
Finally, let's end with a plan, or another alternative besides Moria: Bilbo's path
Remember the caves of goblins in the Hobbit? The path Bilbo took to the Lonely Mountain? All of the goblins living in those caves and caves all over the Misty Mts. were gathered together in the battle of the 5 armies, and crushed. The caves were now empty, and safe. They could have passed through these without difficulty, and not gone through all that loss, and the disadvantages.
Today we have covered a lot of stuff. We've taken a look at several observations and disadvantages, as well as a final plan. Overall, I continue to stand resolved that Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship through Moria.
Thank you, and I hope this speech warrants a pro ballot.
Response to O1 - Movies clarify. Where the books are confusing or unclear, we can also use the movies to clear up those points. So we shouldn't simply use the books to the exclusion of all else.
Clarification of O2 - hindsight. We're looking at it as Frodo after the fact with hindsight.
Response to DA1 - White Wizard. Even though Gandalf died, he was later resurrected as the White Wizard, with even greater power and ability.
1st response to DA2 - Aragorn. Even though Gandalf wasn't able to help the fellowship for a period of time, they had a more than adequate leader in Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor.
2nd response to DA2 - Not true. No time was lost - the Fellowship scooted immediately upon Gandalf's fall, and used all possible speed to move on ahead.
Response to DA3.1 - Beneficial - Gandalf has already been addressed. Beyond the point already made, it's important to note that Gandalf himself said that it was best that Frodo was by himself while passing through Mordor, because then the Eye of Sauron would not be drawn to him. Actually, because Gandalf fell, it made it possible for Frodo to pass through Mordor and eventually destroy the One Ring. The death of Boromir was also beneficial, because if he hadn't been killed off, his desire for the Ring would only have grown, he would have taken it, and most likely, he would have been corrupted and become a wraith and the Ring would have fallen into the hands of the enemy.
Response to DA3.2 - Eru's protection - Eru, the 'god' if you will of the LOTR universe, was guiding the Fellowship. Gandalf, in the books, several times references a higher power guiding them all along. There wouldn't have been a mistake. It all worked out for the best in the end, as pointed out above.
Disadvantages to the Pro plan -
DA1 - goblins returned - The goblins had recuperated and returned to the caves of the Misty Mountains. They weren't as empty as the Pro seems to believe. Similarly to how Dain and the Dwarves of the Iron Hills were severely weakened at the Battle of the Five Armies, but managed to largely recuperate their strength by the time of the LOTR.
DA2 - benefits gone - the deaths discussed above would not have occurred if the Fellowship had gone through the empty caves of Moria. Impacts - Gandalf would not be strengthened, Boromir would have probably found a way to steal the Ring, Sauron would have acquired the Ring, etc.
DA3 - Fellowship massacred - since the caves weren't empty, the Fellowship would have been massacred.
In the end, with the Pro plan, Pro has two choices, both of them are actually Con arguments. Either the caves are crawling with orcs etc, and the Fellowship is wiped out. Or, the caves are empty, and the events that occurred in Moria would not have occurred, and either Boromir would have stolen the Ring, or the Fellowship would have been wiped out while traveling to/through Mordor because the Eye of Sauron would have picked up such a unique and strong band of people.
O2: Frodo's view after the LOTR series. We should be taking a look from a speculated Frodo's perspective after the trilogy has ended.
Countering responses to DAs:
DA1: Con said 'White Wizard'. I have two responses: a) Gandalf suffered unnecessarily, which I will show later on. b) Con has brought forth no evidence showing that Gandalf wouldn't have become the White Wizard without the encounter with the Balrog.
DA2: Con said a. Aragorn, and b. Not true. Aragorn did not prove to be a fully capable leader, although he was a good one. Take, for example, how he decided to look into the palantir. Although he made it, he only barely made it. Another application is when he was hasty to look for signs of Gandalf. He gave himself and the 4 hobbits away to the Nazgul, and Frodo nearly was transformed into a wraith. Addressing b. Not true, They did lose time, especially at the encounter with the Watcher, the orcs and the cave troll, and especially the Balrog. Besides, which can go under my DA3, Gandalf, as you may remember, got into a 3-way branch in the path. His sole decision for choosing the middle one was 'always follow your nose', as you may remember. If he had made only one mistake, and chosen the left or right paths, the Fellowship would have either been lost or massacred. This shows why the alternative: Bilbo's path, is actually better, which leads me to strengthen my DA3: Only 1 mistake:
a. Con responded, saying 'beneficial'. I believe I've already addressed the Gandalf issue under DA1. Con also did not bring any evidence showing that Frodo could only have gone alone with Sam if Gandalf had not been there. Also, the death of Boromir was not shown to be beneficial, especially as he repented in the end, after Frodo's last refusal. Furthermore, if Gandalf had been there, this whole issue might not have happened, as Gandalf had more power (I would argue) than possibly the rest of the Fellowship combined. If he had lived, he might have proven a valuable defendant at Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, and the Battle before the Black Gate (which could have been prevented). Furthermore, Con has shown no evidence that he would have become a wraith. Frodo did not become a wraith after years and years of possession. Why should Boromir become one only after months?
b. Con responded 'Eru's protection'. True, it worked out for the best in the end. However, I have two responses:
1. No proof of Eru/Frodo's perspective/Topicality:
The Con has brought forth no evidence that Eru even existed. Besides this point, we are looking at Frodo's perspective after the LOTR series. Frodo did not even recognize the presence of a 'higher force'. Furthermore, Eru's action and intervention does not 'justify' Frodo. Closing this response, if Eru did have supreme power, as the Con seems to hint, why didn't he destroy Melkor and Sauron and their hordes all at once? If the Fellowship had walked into Mordor sounding trumpets, shooting off rockets, and ultimately attracting the Eye of Sauron, then couldn't Eru have protected them all? Besides, why did he choose to let many Men, Elves, and Dwarves die in the War of the Ring? Couldn't he just have destroyed all of the bad guys?
In response to Con's DAs to my Plan:
DA1: Con said 'goblins returned': Con has brought forth no proof. Furthermore, the goblins were completely wiped out in the Battle of the Five Armies and the events following. What escaped the battle did not escape the dangers of Mirkwood or of the armies that hunted them down. Conversely, Dain and his people were not wiped out, but prospered, and refurbished the Lonely Mountain.
DA2: Con said 'benefits gone' We have covered Gandalf and Boromir already, so let's move on to
DA3: Con said 'Fellowship massacred': Con is contradicting himself. He's saying that the hordes of Moria, including the Balrog, from which the Fellowship escaped, would have less power than the few or zero goblins that might or might not have escaped from the Battle of the Five Armies. I've already shown that the Con has brought no evidence showing that the caves were reinhabited. Furthermore, Con contradicts himself again. He's saying that Eru can bring them all the way through Middle Earth and through Mordor and Moria, but cannot bring them through Bilbo's path with fewer disadvantages.
Overall, I've shown that Con contradicts himself (no pun intended) quite a few times, while Bilbo's path is the way to go. Thanks for bearing with me for that almost 5,000 words, and I hope that you will cast the vote for the Pro.
Responses to Pro's DAs:
DA1.a Gandalf suffered unnecessarily. Response - not shown. Pro said he would show that Gandalf suffered unnecessarily later on, but did not do so. This argument was essentially dropped and not contested by Pro and is won by Con.
DA1.b Con has brought forth no evidence showing that Gandalf wouldn't have become the White Wizard without the encounter with the Balrog. Response - Pro burden of proof. Con has shown that Gandalf became the White Wizard because he went through Moria. It's Pro's turn to contest that argument, and Pro has not done so with adequate evidence.
DA2.a Aragorn did not prove to be a fully capable leader, although he was a good one. Responses: looking into the Palantir was a calculated decision, meant to draw Sauron's Eye from Frodo and the Ring. The Nazgul would have eventually found the Ring anyway. He did manage to fend them off though.
DA2.b The Fellowship did lose time. Not true. The instances that Pro mentioned resulted in only a negligible loss of time, perhaps added together 10 hours or so. Moria was actually a shortcut - going through Isengard or the Misty Mountains would have taken much longer.
DA3. If Gandalf had made only one mistake, the Fellowship would have either been lost or massacred. Response - Bilbo's path no better. The caves of the Misty Mountains were, if possible, even more tortuous and labyrinthine than the Mines of Moria. The Hobbit demonstrates this - just look at how easily Bilbo got lost.
DA3.a. First, I'd like to point out that Pro did not provide any evidence to support his arguments about Gandalf. Con wins the Gandalf/White Wizard arguments.
Pro also said that the death of Boromir was not shown to be beneficial, especially as he repented in the end. Response - not true. Boromir already had the desire for the Ring burned into him - he wouldn't have just let go like that. He repented only for the moment because he saw for an instant what he was becoming.
Pro then argued that If Boromir had lived, he might have proven a valuable defendant at Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, and the Battle before the Black Gate. Response - irrelevant if Boromir took the RIng and became a wraith.
Pro then argued that Con showed no evidence that Boromir would have become a wraith. Response - men more susceptible. It was widely acknowledged throughout the book that hobbits were much more resistant to the draw of the Ring and other evil forces than Men. I can present applications of this if Pro would like.
DA3.b.1. Pro argued that the Con has brought forth no evidence that Eru even existed or that Frodo recognized the presence of a 'higher force'. Response - ignoring proof. I presented evidence in my last speech that Pro simply ignored and did not contest. Let me further elaborate on that evidence. Frodo recognized that there was a higher power moving things along throughout the book. I said this in Round 1, and Pro did not contest or question the fact that the book mentions several times a higher power. For example, Gandalf said "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker" early on in the Fellowship of the Ring.
DA3.b.2 Pro argued that if Eru did have supreme power, if the Fellowship had walked into Mordor sounding trumpets, shooting off rockets, and ultimately attracting the Eye of Sauron, then couldn't Eru have protected them all? Response - stupidity. It seems that Eru held to the idea that "God helps those who help themselves." If the Fellowship had been that stupid, Eru would probably not have intervened. Eru did not intervene when Denethor attempted to kill his own son and committed suicide, etc.
Moving on to the DA's I brought against the Pro plan.
DA1: Pro said that Con has no proof. Response - not true. I did present proof that the goblins multiplied again.
Pro then said that the goblins were completely wiped out in the Battle of the Five Armies and the events following. Response: Sauron's power - Sauron was busy breeding orcs and goblins. The existence of orcs in the Misty Mountains is proven by the fact that they attacked Lorien and King Thranduil's realm during the events of LOTR.
DA2: Pro simply dismissed this DA without responding to it. This argument is also won by Con.
DA3: Pro then simply dismissed this DA as well by saying that the Con was contradicting himself. Response - I was pointing out two scenarios - either the caves were empty, and DA2 would have happened, or the caves were crawling with orcs, and DA3 would have happened. Either way, Pro loses.
I actually pointed this out at the end of the last Con round, and this was also uncontested by the Pro. Either way, Pro loses DAs 2 and 3, and Pro's plan cannot be voted for because of those two uncontested DA's, so therefore the only way to go is Con. Finally, I'd like to point out that throughout Pro's arguments this round, he has consistently been ignoring or simply dismissing evidence and arguments brought forward by the Con in the last round.
DA1.b: Con has the burden of proof. He asserted that 'Gandalf became the White Wizard because he went through Moria'. By saying this, he has implied through his side that Gandalf would not have become the White Wizard if he had not gone through Moria. He has not proved this implication. So the Pro does not carry the burden of proof, but rather the Con.
DA2.a Con said 'calculated decision'. Con is saying Aragorn is bad at math. He said that it was a 'calculated' decision. But the book says he only 'barely' made it. Therefore he should not be a good leader. (joke unintended)
DA2.b Con said 'Untrue'. Response: Going through Moria had many more delays than what I have shown. For example, the crossings over large gaps in the pathway (described in the books) sometimes broken for a long way. Furthermore, there was the reading of the Book of Mazarbul, and many, many other delays that I don't have words to go into. That delays would have made it so that going through Bilbo's path (which was not that far away from Moria) would have been worth the little extra walk.
DA3: Con said 'same w/ Bilbo's path'. The thing is, Gandalf knew the passages of Bilbo's path for two reasons: 1. He had been there more recently. 2. He had got out the last time. There was less probability of a mistake for the Pro's plan. Furthermore, Bilbo was not lost the normal way you get lost. He got his head knocked hard, and it's hard not to get lost after that.
DA3.a: Firstly Con does not win the Gandalf argument, as I pointed out at the beginning. Also, Con has not proved that Boromir's repentance was temporary. In fact, the only proof we see from the books is that he did repent. This is also why he would not have stolen the Ring from Frodo and why my argument of 'valuable defender and leader' is relevant. Of course Men are more 'vulnerable' to the draw of the Ring than Hobbits. It's just not like it's instantaneous though.
DA3.b.1 So what? Eru does exist.
DA3.b.2 Con said 'God helps those who help themselves'. 2 responses: 1. No proof that Eru held to this philosophy, 2. Eru does not always intervene in the way we would want him to. For example, he drowned Numenor. Furthermore, in the Hobbit, Bilbo did not 'try' to find the Ring. He was 'meant' to. He was not helping himself or trying to defeat Sauron. Eru simply intervened (contradicting Con's proposed 'philosophy') and 'brought' the Ring to Bilbo. It is not always 'stupid', as the Con seems to believe.
The Con's DAs:
DA1: First of all, Con has not proved that the the orcs that Sauron breeded would have traveled ALL THE WAY FROM MORDOR to the Misty Mts. There are several reasons for this: Saruman was not found to be evil until the beginning of the series, Rohan and Gondor were in the way, and also Lorien was largely in the way as well. They would have been completely eliminated. Finally, the orcs that attacked Lorien and Mirkwood were 1. Orcs from Dol Guldor, Sauron's old stronghold or 2. Orcs from Moria WHICH IS UNDER THE MISTY MTS and not in them.
DA2 and DA3: I did not drop these points. If you look back at my last round, I CLEARLY RESPONDED TO THEM. Furthermore, there would have been benefit (again countering DA2) especially if they were empty, as, if they had Gandalf with them (by going through Bilbo's path), would have been able to keep the majority of the Fellowship together, while Sam and Frodo set out to Mordor. This would have prevented a wild goose chase for the hobbits (which wouldn't have been lost with Gandalf leading the Fellowship). If they were crawling with orcs (as they couldn't have, seeing the above of this speech) then, as we know, that however many orcs any one cave could get, it is sure that it would pale in comparison to the hordes of Moria.
It's for these reasons (including clarifying the Con's claim that I dropped 2 of his DAs) that you can vote for my plan. So the only way you can really go is for the Pro. Before we conclude, I'd like to say that if you look at my speeches, I HAVE NOT BEEN DISMISSING OR IGNORING EVIDENCE. I'm just seeing a lack of it in the Con's unproven statements. A final analogy: Statements without proof or a lot of logic are useless. In fact, they are as useless as saying that 'elephants run around everywhere really fast. That's why we don't see them.' As we see, the Con has both a lack of proof, and a lack of consistency in his arguments. It is for these reasons that I would strongly urge a vote for the Pro.
Thank you for bearing with me.
DA1.a. Pro said there were alternatives. Response - Crossapply Pro plan - if the Pro plan is defeated, then there are no alternatives in the round and Con wins.
DA1.b: Pro said Con has the burden of proof. Response - irrelevant. This response has nothing to do with the original DA1 - that Gandalf died. I showed that the Pro DA1 was actually a Con argument - Gandalf's death was beneficial because he could become the White Wizard. Both sides agree that Gandalf became the White Wizard by going thru Moria. This uncontested. The Pro DA1 is a Con argument, Con still wins here.
DA2.a Pro said Aragorn was not a good leader. Response - good enough. He didn't lose any time like Pro said in the DA2.
DA2.b Pro said going through Moria had many more delays. Response 1 - only alternative. Crossapply Pro plan. If Pro plan is defeated then Moria is the only choice. Response 2 - quantify. How much time was actually lost, and did it materially affect the Fellowship?
DA3: Pro said Gandalf knew the passages of Bilbo's path better. Response 1 - irrelevant. It's irrelevant which Gandalf knew better. The original DA of only one mistake still applies to both Moria and Bilbo's path. Response 2 - only choice. Once again, if the Pro plan won't work, then Moria is the only choice, regardless of DA's. Response 3 - not shown. Once again, Pro has not provided evidence to support his claim.
DA3.a.1. Pro talked about Gandalf. Crossapply responses to Gandalf's death above under DA1.b and more.
DA3.a.2. Pro then talked about Boromir. The books do not say that Boromir's repentance was temporary, but it can be inferred that it would have been had Boromir lived and Frodo stayed with the Fellowship. In addition, Pro conceded the fact that Men are more vulnerable to the draw of the Ring. So eventually, Boromir would have succumbed and taken the Ring, and we all know what would have happened after that.
DA3.b.1. Pro conceded the main point - that Eru does exist. Argument won by Con.
DA3.b.2. Pro then talked about how and when Eru intervenes. Response - irrelevant. We know that Eru got involved to keep the Ring from Sauron once (when Bilbo found it) and this is not contested. It's safe to assume that Eru would get involved again to keep the Ring from Sauron. In fact, Eru seems to not like Sauron - he drowned Numenor (like Pro pointed out) to prevent people under Sauron's influence from setting foot on Valinor.
DA1: Pro said that Sauron only breeded orcs in Mordor. Pro then contradicted himself by saying that orcs could therefore not be anywhere but Mordor because of Gondor and Rohan, then he said that orcs were also present in Moria and Dol Guldur. I have several responses. Response 1 - contradiction, as I've already pointed out. Response 2 - where did the orcs come from? Moria was not occupied at the time of the Hobbit, because Balin later moved there, until the orcs multiplied and wiped out his colony. Where did they come from? Response 3 - Orc spawning. Obviously orcs regenerate by some unknown method, and the Misty Mountains would have also been crawling with them, just like Moria was.
DA2 and DA3: Pro then painted a happy picture of a tramp through the caves of the Misty Mountains. The only problem being that that's not the way it would have happened. Pro did not respond to the double bind imposed by these two DA's - that either you get massacred or you have the Ring stolen by Boromir and Sauron gets the Ring. This double bind has not been responded to throughout the last two rounds, and therefore has been essentially conceded to by Pro. This argument is absolutely won by the Con.
Impact - because the double disadvantages are won by Con, the entire Pro plan falls apart. Either you get massacred or Sauron gets the Ring. Both of those are obviously not good or legitimate reasons to do something. Because the sole Pro plan is the only alternative to the mines of Moria, and because it is defeated, regardless of who wins the Pro disadvantages, a Con vote is already warranted, as pointed out in the Pro DA1.a and 2.b.1.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that the Pro is the side that has the burden of proving the resolution. If there is any doubt whatsoever in your mind as to the Pro side of the resolution, then a Con vote is warranted. This is commonly held debate theory and I feel confident that @Dantheawesome will not contest this.
At the end of the day, the Pro plan simply doesn't hold water, as shown by the Con DA's. Because the Pro plan doesn't work, a Con ballot is justified. Thank you, and I now hand the floor back to Pro.
The Pro does bear the burden of proof for the resolution, but not proving Con's arguments for him, or proving unproved arguments false. The Con has not brought proof for many of the responses/arguments he has made in this round. Now let's take a look at the rest of Con's last round.
DA1.a. There are alternatives (see the rest of this round for proof)
DA1.b: This does have relevancy, especially as Con did not prove that Gandalf had do DIE to become the White Wizard. He did not even show any proof that Gandalf would not have become the White Wizard had they not gone through Moria, both of which I brought up in my last two rounds. Con does not yet win here. He shouldn't just go around saying that he wins every argument.
DA2.a Aragorn, although the book does not say whether or not he lost time, nonetheless was not as good of a leader as Gandalf could've been. (Con was not on the topic of my DA2 here)
DA2.b.1 Con keeps on saying 'crossapply Pro plan'. This should not be used as a universal argument.
DA2.b.2: The delay is hard to estimate, but I would not make it short of 36 hours. This delay (only counting the delay in Moria) caused other mishaps to the Fellowship as I showed in my last two rounds.
DA3: Gandalf, as he knew Bilbo's path better had LESS CHANCE of making a mistake. Of course, there always is, but the less risk, the better. That's why it is relevant. (Another 'crossapply pro plan here'). It is logical that Gandalf knew Bilbo's path better. Remember when he came to Moria? He didn't even know the password to get in (which also contributed to the delay) and the famous quote: "Always follow your nose!", which demonstrates that he did not know Moria very well. Conversely, he had made it through Bilbo's path before without harm. That is my evidence that I have already brought up (as a response in the last round or the one before), and yet the Con has said that I didn't.
DA3.a.1 See DA1.b
DA3.a.2 Con said that Boromir's repentance was temporary. I have 3 responses to his arguments: 1) No evidence. Con has not proven this to be true. 2) Irrelevant. Even if Con did prove that Boromir's repentance was temporary, it wasn't instantaneous. The irrelevancy is shown in 3) Con said 'had Boromir lived and Frodo stayed'. The problem was, Frodo did not stay. He left immediately after. So with Boromir without the desire or means to hunt down Frodo, he would loyally defend Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith.
DA3.b.1 So what? Eru does exist. Why does Con make such a big deal out of that.........?
DA3.b.2 I never implied that Eru liked Sauron. I merely said that Eru's intervention could not be depended upon for everything, which idea Con has not contested.
DA1: I never said that only Sauron breeded orcs. 1) I have not contradicted myself, as the orcs in Dol Guldor were preexisting from Sauron's reign there, and the orcs in Moria were a) branched out from Dol Guldor, or b) Came from the goblin stronghold north of the Misty Mts, or c) Created by the Balrog of Moria. 2) a) Irrelevant. b) They were i) Bands from the above sources of orcs, or, more likely, ii) Preexisting. The dwarves dug deep and awoke the Balrog of Moria. He could have created these orcs, or they could have been just under his command, or they could have been with the Balrog the whole time. Orcs do not spontaneously generate from nothing. Orcs are a) breeded, or b) conjured from the ground, as depicted in the movie (Saruman). Thus there is no reason to believe that the Misty Mts. would have been crawling with orcs.
DA2/3: Con has said I dropped these two for the last two rounds. I request you to look at my last two rounds, and disregard his unfounded 'did not respond' To review my previous responses, I pointed out that 1) if the Misty Mts were empty, then Gandalf would not have died, which means he could have been there to counter the effect of the Ring on Boromir, or at least to slow the effect or to prevent the whole closeness of the thing before Frodo left for Mordor. 2) If they were crawling with orcs, there is now way that one cave could contain more than was in Moria. There especially was not going to be a Balrog for every cave through the whole Misty Mts. I also had more responses, but you can check those out for yourself.
Besides 'did not respond' arguments, my plan was uncontested through the whole round (I responded to his 3 DAs). Therefore Con agrees it is a viable option and it automatically warrants a Pro vote.
Before we close, I would argue that the Pro's job is to prove the resolution beyond a reasonable amount of doubt. It is not proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt, as the Con seems to imply (it would be impossible).
As we conclude: we see that half the Con's arguments are 'did not respond' arguments that were already responded to. I hope you see the inconsistency in his flawed thinking, and give your vote to me.
Both sides have had instances where they overlooked the other side's evidence/argument. I would say Pro is guilty of this more, but let's not get bogged down there, let's look at the big picture.
DA1.a and 2.b.1 - crossapply Pro plan is not a universal argument - it points you to a Con argument that responds to several Pro arguments. Go ahead and look at the Pro plan for further discussion of these two Pro args.
DA1.b: Pro said that Con did not prove that Gandalf had to DIE to become the White Wizard or that Gandalf would not have become the White Wizard had they not gone through Moria, both of which I brought up in my last two rounds. General response - I don't go around saying I win every argument. Specific responses - death required. If death wasn't required, why didn't Gandalf just transmorgrify himself into the White Wizard earlier? It would have made the transit through Moria much smoother.
DA2.a Pro then said that Con was not on the topic of Pro's DA2. Response - in fact, Pro is the side who is not on topic. DA2 was originally about lost time, not about Aragorn's abilities. Pro has just conceded that Aragorn did not in fact lose time as the leader of the Fellowship, which was the main Con point here.
DA2.b.2: Pro then said the actual delays added up to 36 hours. Response 1 - no proof. Pro has been claiming he has mounds of proof, while accusing me of having no proof at all. Where's your proof, mate? Response 2 - minimal. 36 is tiny in the grand scheme of things. Response 3 - no alternative. Once again, crossapply Pro plan. If there is no alternative, any delay doesn't matter.
DA3: Pro then explained why Bilbo's path was easier. Con has an apology - I stated that Pro did not support his arguments because Pro did not explain them fully. Apologies, as Pro has now explained. Response - still only one mistake. The main point still stands, that only one mistake would have sunk the whole Fellowship.
DA3.a.1 See DA1.b
DA3.a.2.1 Pro said no evidence. Response - description of Ring's draw. The evidence I brought forward discussing the Ring's irresistible draw was uncontested. The entire DA3.2 should go Con immediately.
DA3.a.2.2 Pro said it was irrelevant. Response - It's obviously relevant because...
DA3.a.2.3 Pro said Frodo did not stay. Response - Boromir would probably have taken the Ring eventually had Gandalf been there and the Fellowship had not been divided. Even if he hadn't, and he lived, he would probably have gone after Frodo, much like how the Ring irresistibly drew Gollum.
General response to Pro's arguments about DA3.a.2 - speculation. Pro is simply speculating
DA3.b.1 Con wins this argument, uncontested. Moving on...
DA3.b.2 Pro said that Con did not contest that Eru's intervention could not be depended upon, when in fact I did contest it. Specifically, I said, quoting from Con Round 3: "It's safe to assume that Eru would get involved again to keep the Ring from Sauron."
DA1: Pro contradicted himself several times while responding to this argument. Balrogs don't make orcs or have living orcs in their tombs. That argument evinces a lack of knowledge of the books. Also, I'd just like to point out one thing that Pro said in his last argument: "Orcs are a) breeded, or b) conjured from the ground, as depicted in the movie (Saruman)." This in effect concedes the entire point I've been trying to make - that the caves were most likely crawling with 'rebred' or 'reconjured' orcs.
DA2/3: I did not say that Pro completely dropped these args. I said that he dropped my double bind argument - that either one or the other is true, and both are Con situations.
DA2/3.1 Pro said that Gandalf could have been there to counter the effect of the Ring on Boromir. Pro has once again failed to prove this claim. Disregard this argument.
DA2/3.2 Pro then said that the Orcs of the caves were weaker than the mines. Pro has once again failed to prove this claim. Disregard this argument.
For the sake of clarity, the double bind argument is reprinted from the last round: "Pro did not respond to the double bind imposed by these two DA's - that either you get massacred or you have the Ring stolen by Boromir and Sauron gets the Ring."
One thing Pro irrefutably did not respond to is the impact I brought up near the end of the last round. Basically, it is uncontested that if the Con wins the Con disadvantages, the Con also wins the Pro plan, and therefore Con also wins the debate.
Pro then said Con did not respond to the Pro plan. I ask to look at the three disadvantages that Con brought up. Those were direct responses to the Pro plan.
Once again, reprinting: "At the end of the day, the Pro plan simply doesn't hold water."
Dantheawesome forfeited this round.
WikiCopter forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.