What Smeagol Loves Doing
My opponent will argue that he would rather spend his time doing something else.
I will be arguing that Smeagol does not "[love] to spend his free time eating fish and arguing with himself", but rather he would love to spend his free time fishing in the waters of the Gladden River with his beloved Deagol. Sadly, however, Smeagol is not upon us anymore (PBUH). He perished in the fires of mount doom along with his precious. Let us begin.
I will explain how the intentions and documented actions of Smeagol in all media directly prove his exclusive joy in fish and introverted debate. I will always refute the ridiculous lack of validity inherent in my opponents basis for argument.
The concept of "Smeagol" is one inherently obsessed with fish. He is first met by Bilbo Baggins in the dark recesses of the Misty Mountains. "He paddled it with large feet dangling over the side, but never a ripple did he make." (pg. 68 "The Hobbit") Obviously Smeagol was adept at the art of blindfish-hunting because he was skilled enough to not disturb the fish's powerful senses of hearing. Gollum has been perfectly adapted for his past-time of fishing. He is described as dark with pale yet luminous eyes. He is nearly impossible to detect under these conditions.
Smeagol is also a philosopher. He is constantly in debate with himself over the best course of action. This is seen in the Two Towers when he argues with himself. Smeagol clearly wins the argument. His opponent, Smeagol results to debased use of ad hominem "You don't have any friends; nobody likes you!"
Con's argument is triflin cuz that nigga Deagol dead
"The concept of 'Smeagol' is one inherently obsessed with fish." With this statement, you are presupposing that if I were to enjoy fish, studied them with great fervor, or even wished to become one of their kind, I would become a "Smeagol". Well, Jordeef, I can tell you with 100% certainty that logic is flawed. Quite honestly, it's patently absurd. Smeagol is not a concept first of all, Smeagol is a Stoor Hobbit. "...there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors, for they loved the River, and often swam in it, or made little boats of reeds. There was among them a family of high repute, for it was large and wealthier than most, and it was ruled by a grandmother of the folk, stern and wise in old lore, such as they had. The most inquisitive and curious-minded of that family was called Smeagol."  Clearly Smeagol is not a concept. Albeit I will agree he was "adept at the art of blindfish-hunting", this skill was adapted out of necessity, not for his "past-time of fishing". Smeagol was trapped in the depths of the Goblin Kingdom under the Misty Mountains (for goblins were guarding each of the exits), where there was little to no light . So naturally, or rather supernaturally, he gained this ability due to necessity.
"He had a friend called Deagol, of similar sort, sharper-eyed but not so quick and strong. On a time they took a boat and went down to the Gladden Fields, where there were great beds of iris and flowering reeds. There Smeagol got out and went nosing about on the banks but Deagol sat in the boat and fished." As you can see, Smeagol and Deagol spent their free time in the Gladden Fields, fishing and investigating with each other.
Ahh, here my opponent has issued forth a non sequitur, saying "Smeagol clearly wins the argument. His oppoenent Smeagol results to the debased use of ad hominem 'You don't have any friends; nobody likes you!'". This is utterly incoherent, as if Smeagol won the debate, 1) he would not have had to resort to using an ad hominem, and 2) Smeagol would not have insulted his opponent 'Smeagol', he would have insulted his opponent 'Gollum', his alternate personality, because Smeagol suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder. Besides, getting into an argument with your alternate personality doesn't qualify you as a philosopher. He also showed no sign whatsoever of *enjoying* the banter with Gollum.
He loved being with his dear friend Deagol, not living under a mountain and arguing with his alternate identity. I thank my opponent for such an intellectually stimulating round.
1. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The Shadow of the Past, page 57.
2. Tolkien, The Hobbit. Riddles In The Dark, pages 79-100.
2. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The Shadow of the Past, page 58.
I'll reiterate: Smeagol likes (liked, rather) to chill with his homeboy Deagol in them gladden fields, son.
To further substantiate my claims of Smeagol's love for fish and debate:
Smeagol (PBUH) loved fish. His life had been extended by the One Ring, and his subterranean cave lifestyle yielded fish as a primary means of sustenence:
"His thuglife was extended far beyond itz natural limitz by tha effectz of possessin tha Ring, which he frequently referred ta as "my precious" n' "my birthdizzle present" fo' realz."
Smeagol is quoted in his love for fish:
"Da rock n' pool, Is ill n' def, So juicy sweeeeet. Our only wish, To catch a fish, So juicy SWEEEEEEET, mutha***a!"
"Smeagol (PBUH) loved fish. His life had been extended by the One Ring, and his subterranean cave lifestyle yielded fish as a primary means of sustenence...".
First of all, this is a non sequitur. Following an affinity for fish with a Ring-induced life extension is incoherent. Anent your statement that he loved fish because it was his only source of nutrition, I will recreate your argument in the following syllogism:
1)Smeagol can either eat fish or not-fish (F v ~F)
2)Smeagol can't eat not-fish because he's in an environment that only allows fish (~~F)
3)Smeagol eats fish (:.F)
:. Smeagol loves fish
This syllogism is obviously flawed because you came to a conclusion that can't be logically produced from the given premises. It is not logical to jump from necessity to desire. Just because the only food available to him is fish doesn't mean he loves fish.
"Our only wish, to catch a fish, so juicy SWEEEEET"
Now, this statement is clearly flawed. It is obviously from the movie, which alone rules out all possible validity. The movie is cinematic, so it is not likely to contain the most accurate information possible. If that were so, Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow would be given at least a mention in the movie. The movies, as opposed to the books, also feature entirely new information that was not mentioned in the books. Therefore, any statement quoted from the movie cannnot be taken as fact from the Lord of the Rings canon.
...I don't even know where to begin with this. This dialogue is so res ipsa loquitur invalid it's utterly ridiculous. There is invalidity pouring out of my computer it's so bad. I can't contain this ignorance. Such ignorance has not been seen since Melkor was considered one of the Valar.
I'll reiterate: Smeagol ate fish out of necessity. He did not necessarily *like* fish. He also argued with his other personality because he was resigned to the effects of DID. His arguing (debating, as you like to say) with himself did not stem from philosophical foundations, but rather a mental disorder.
Smeagol enjoyed hanging out with his friend Deagol and fishing and investigating, not eating fish out of necessity and arguing with himself due to clinically diagnosed Disossiative Identity Disorder.
Proven: Smeagol "loves" eating fish and arguing with himself because he does nothing else. He has nothing else because he has chosen to give up everything else.
Smeagolian Apologetics.... Applying Apologetics to a Lord of the Rings character is the most ignorant thing I've seen in my life. If I took an IQ test before round 5 and then once again after round 5, there would be a significant decrease in IQ points. I literally lost intelligence after having read this. K?
"It is also obvious that Smeagol only values the "Precious" so much because it extends his life."
This is not true. In fact, it's absurd. Smeagol values his "Precious" (a.k.a the One Ring) because he is mortal and is helpless to the power of the Ring. As a mortal he is powerless against the will of the Rings. So any explanation of his value for the Ring besides submitting to its power is ridiculous.
"This gives Smeagol infinitely more time to use catching and subsequently eating fish all alone."
I will not deny this, but it is not because of his affinity for fish as you would claim, but because he has nothing to do besides eat fish alone.
"Deagol was dead because Smeagol killed him all for a ring and limitless fish time"
What? You're saying he knew *before* having the ring that it would giving him "limitless fish time". Do you have any idea how ignorant that is? He killed Deagol, not because he "didn't love him", but because he was once again influenced by the power of the Ring.
"It is out of this nothingness that Gollum was created"
No, it was due to the power of the Ring corrupting him that Gollum came into existence.
"Smeagol does not fish with Deagol because obviously, he prefers his current lifestyle over his previous one"
No. Maybe GOLLUM prefers this current life, but Smeagol does not. Given the choice Smeagol would choose not to be in his current situation (except having the Ring, of course). He doesn't not fish with Deagol because he prefers one lifestyle over the other, he doesn't fish with Deagol because he killed Deagol due to the power of the Ring influencing him to do so. Besides he did not have foresight. He could not have known the life he was about to create for him after killing Deagol and taking the Ring.
:. Your argument has been proven wrong at the most fundamental levels. And since you have not disproven mine, I will win this debate. (THERE WILL BE NO VOTING, ONCE AGAIN).