Judgement - Round 3: Outcasts vs OiE

[Snaga]

This is the thread to post the judgements on the the debate between the Guild of Outcasts and Ost-in-Edhil.

The judges are:

Eledhwen
Scatha
Nenya Evenstar
Ciryaher
Snaga1

I have posted a poll for others to express their verdict, but this doesnt effect the result.

The thread can be located here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12095)

Finally I'd like to thank all those who took part for their contributions.:)

Let the judging begin!

[Eledhwen]

This was a fascinating debate, and more difficult than the subject matter might suggest. I congratulate both teams on a good scrap!

The Outcasts began with the argument that Bilbo was wrong to offer the Arkenstone to Bard., and waded in with the argument that Bilbo should have guessed what Thorin's reaction would have been, that his decision should instead have been to offer his own share of the treasure to Bard, which would have covered Bard's demands.

They also argued that Bilbo betrayed Thorin by his actions, and the fact that the battle of the five armies resolved the matter does not change things, as Bilbo should have made a better decision based on the knowledge he had at the time. He should have known the effect that dragon-gold has on Dwarves.

Next they said that Bilbo knew it was wrong to pocket the stone and that the One Ring influenced his actions. When challenged about Roac's advice, they countered that Roac meant that Bilbo's gold should be handed over.

Countering an argument that Gandalf praised Bilbo, the Outcasts said that Gandalf's "Well Done!" was praising his overall performance/bravery and was overlooking his mistake with the Arkenstone, and that he would not admonish the Hobbit for that.

Outcasts pointed out that Bard had no right to the Arkenstone, that Thorin did not accept Bilbo's right to choose the Arkenstone as his share, and that JRRT would not have commented on Bilbo's judgement in the matter because his morality was not in question.

Basically, the Outcasts claimed that it was Bilbo's motives, knowledge and action at the time, not the end result, that should be judged in ascertaining whether his actions were right or wrong.

-------------

Ost-in-Edhil argued that Bilbo was right to offer the Arkenstone to Bard. They began by pointing out that Bilbo had a strong sense of right and justice which motivated his actions. They also pointed out that Bilbo had saved the Dwarves over and again after Gandalf left them, so had shown his sound judgement and bravery.

Next they pointed out that Roac had recommended Bard to the Dwarves as the one they should negotiate with, and that Bilbo took that information on board.

Ost-in-Edhil then countered the argument that the Ring had affected Bilbo's decision. They claimed that he acted as he did because he listened to Roac and his own heart, and that Bilbo was not a thief/cheat but quick witted and bold, and was able to hand over the Arkenstone despite his personal desire for it and the influence of the dragon. Bilbo could only hope, and was ultimately rewarded when he regained Thorin's respect.

Another counter to the Ring influence argument was then offered, suggesting that if the Ring had such a strong effect on him, would it not have kicked in earlier and had him heading South? Also, Bilbo refused refuge and returned to relieve Bombur as he had promised. It was the curse of the dragon, not the Ring that had affected both Bilbo and Thorin.

It was at this point that Gandalf's influence in the affair, and his high opinion of Bilbo should be taken into account. Gandalf had said "Well Done!" as Bilbo headed back to the mountain. He would have admonished Bilbo if he had done the wrong thing.

Another reason given for Bilbo being right to go to Bard was that Bard was the dragon slayer and had won the respect of the people.

Ost-in-Edhil argued that the Arkenstone was the ultimate bargaining tool, not Bilbo's treasure. They quote both Thorin and Gandalf as testimony to Bilbo's goodness and wisdom.

---------------------

I noticed that the Outcasts frequently posted more than once to refute an argument, but with very little in the way of fresh arguments, relying mainly on what had been set out in the first couple of posts. They did not convince me of the chief arguments that I should judge an action to be right or wrong based on the information available when it was taken (why?), and that Bilbo should have offered his treasure instead of the Arkenstone. However, Ost-in-Edhil could have countered the treasure argument better, and seemed not to notice that GoO were suggesting an open offer in daylight, not sneaking out Arkenstone-style. They did counter all the other points well, I thought, whereas the Outcasts mainly countered with repeats of their early points without making many new ones. All in all, I felt that OiE had a more convincing argument in their assessments of Bilbo's character, from the story itself, and from other characters in the story. And as for Bilbo acting on the knowledge he had at the time, I can only quote the Gaffer: "All's well as ends Better!" (The Grey Havens, RotK)

My vote goes to Ost-in-Edhil.

[Snaga]

The Outcasts made the following arguments against Bilbo's action

(1) That taking the Arkenstone was unkind to Thorin/ a betrayal and therefore immoral;
(2) That Thorin was angered by it; and as a result...
(3) ...When Bilbo went back he was almost killed.
(4) That Bilbo was acting under evil influence
(5) Or he was trying to get out of a tight spot expediently
(6) And he felt bad about what he was doing.
(7) That Thorin planned to fight for the Arkenstone, not pay for it
(8) So rather the difficulties were resolved not by Bilbo but by the Battle of Five Armies;
(9) So an alternative plan in which Bilbo made an open offer would have worked better

Of the Outcasts arguments, (1) was answered somewhat, (2) shown to be a minor point, (3) also shown to be a minor point if the overall plan was good, (4) Rebutted successfully, and eventually acknowledged as irrelevant, (5) ignored successfully, (6) was left undeveloped, (7) proved to be a successful line of argument, (8) was also never rebuked (or even properly questioned), and (9) was never effectively dealt with, and proved decisive.

Ost-in-Edhil replied with the following arguments:
(1) Bilbo had good intentions
(2) Which brought about the desired effect
(3) Therefore the risk was worth it
(4) Gandalf’s approval is stated
(5) And in Bard, he was dealing with a heroic figure who should be trusted
(6) They claimed Thorin accepted Bilbo’s claim that the Arkenstone could represent his share.
(7) And in the end forgave him
(8) And nowhere is there criticism of Bilbo by the author.

Of these points (1) was accepted without dispute but shown not to be relevant, (2) was successfully disputed, and not properly defended, (3) was therefore not proven. (4) and (5) were torn apart, as was (6). (7) was shown to a consequence of Bilbos good intentions rather than the correctness of his decisions, as was (8).

Overall I have no doubt that the Guild of Outcasts won. They probably had the easier side to argue, but I felt that Ost-in-Edhil could have done more to hold up their end. I felt they could have undermined the Outcast's 'better plan' by insisting that this did not render Bilbo's actions wrong, and more could have been done to find positive reasons to support those actions. The Outcasts themselves made some slips that at times put them on the defensive (such as the 'evil influence' argument) but Ost-in-Edhil never seized the initiative.

Nom argued very well, setting the terms of the debate, and was supported admirably by Yay who tore into the opposition in a manner that was disarming but incisive. An impressive combination.:)

[Ciryaher]

It took me quite a bit of thinking, and I almost called it a draw, but several points cause me to lean in favor of OiE:

1) Bilbo could not have logically offered a share of treasure that, as Smaug assured him, was not yet his.

2) Being a hobbit from a small land suddenly dropped into a big world, he did the best he could..in his own mind. Giving the Arkenstone to the men and elves was the best idea he could think of. Therefore, it was the best thing he was capable of doing and he made the right choice in doing so.

I'm not of many words as my previous judges, but I feel that these are my main points. It was really close, though, and I think both teams did an excellent job! :)

[Nóm]

Am I allowed to ask for clarification of Ciryaher's point one? I am really at a loss with it. If not, it is no big deal I suppose.


Thanks a lot to the Host and judges (including those who have not posted yet).

Fun debate.

[Scatha]

Ok, this debate took me more time to get through then I had thought and the arguements presented back and forth were inspiring.

Personaly I find these type of questions difficult to deal with, as the person in question makes his decision to do something based on his own views, in which only the author has the real knowledge to determine whether this was right or wrong.

I found both teams to have performed admirably and congratulate them both on a job well done. :)

My view of the debate is that even though presented by a strong case from the Outcasts, the team of Ost-in-Edhil has made the better assesment of the hobbit's character and way of thought.

Therefor my vote goes to OiE.


Nom:
In Bilbo's mind, the 14th share of his treasure, would only be his if it had been taken outside of the mountain and packed onto wagons, ready to be moved to hobbiton.

[Nenya Evenstar]

Very good debate! I enjoyed reading it (after the initial shock of realizing that I had approximately 40 pages to read), and I'm happy to say that both sides did an excellent job of debating!

I felt that in the start of the debate that the OiE got out on a slightly better foot than the GoO did. The GoO did not seem to be able to adequately disprove the OiE's points at the very beginning. However, as time went on, I felt that the GoO gradually turned the entire tide of the debate and got the upper hand. One post made by Nom in the middle was for me the point where the GoO's got the upper hand of the debate, and I felt that they held that position until the end.

Throughout the entire thing, the GoO was able to keep their main point that Bilbo's choices with the Arkenstone were not the best choices he could have made, and that he should have instead taken a different course of action. In the beginning this point of their's was not very solid, but as the debate went on, they solidified the point and drove it home. I did not feel that the OiE ever gave an adequate rebuttle to this point.

I felt that the GoO had a solid main point that they worked to defend, whereas the OiE seemed to have nothing solid to work with, and they seemed to waver in their points. The GoO went all out to explain why they thought that Bilbo's choice was the wrong choice, and they suggested that he should have used his own treasure instead of the Arkenstone. I did not feel that it was ever in the least disproven by the OiE that this would have been a better course of action. I also felt that the OiE did not ever really give a solid point as to why they thought that Bilbo's choice was right.

Altogether, I felt that the GoO had excellent rebuttles to almost all of the OiE's points, whereas the OiE did not seem to be able to fully disprove the GoO's points. By the end the OiE seemed to be merely defending instead of actively explaining why they were right.

Therefore (if you can even decipher my rather confusing notes), I choose the Guild of Outcasts as the winner.

Overall a very good debate and by no means easy to judge!

[Snaga]

Thank you to all the judges for their verdicts: I declare a 3-2 victory to Ost-in-Edhil.

Congratulations to both teams for their efforts: a great contest as as the split decision shows. Congratulations to Ost-In-Edil, and commiserations to the Outcasts.:) I am sure with such great debating skills at your disposal you will be a force to be reckoned with in future rounds.

My nominations for best contributions will go to:
(1) Nom
(2) Yaygollum
(3) Chymaera