Round 6, Guild of Outcasts vs. Guild of Tolkienologists

[baragund]

Here is the judging thread for the Round 6 debate between Guild of Tolkienologists and Guild of Outcasts. The judges are:

Chymaera, representing Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Snaga, representing Guild of Periaur
Scatha, representing Guild of Elves
Cyrahir, neutral judge
reem, another neutral judge

[Ciryaher]

I assume that since Baragund invited me, I can go ahead and post my judgement :)

My vote goes to the Guild of Outcasts.

This was an interesting debate topic, to be sure. Rather than a simple "Are men evil?" which is vague and far too ambiguous to base a logical response on, the question was "In the context of Tolkien's legendarium, are Men inherently Good or Evil?".

The first part of judging is looking at the question and finding out what it is asking. There is a condition (In the context of Tolkien's legendarium), and then the actual question (Are men inherently good or evil).

Since "In the context of Tolkien's legendarium" is stating that the argument should be based on Tolkien's legends, not reality or any other legend. The question, however, is "Are men inherently good or evil?". Not "Do men tend to be good or evil?".

Eriol's arguments were self-defeating in this light. He stated:

"Surely the best judge of mankind is Eru Ilúvatar. And this is fitting; for in Arda, as in any monotheistic universe, good is defined as the will of God; the will of Ilúvatar. What Ilúvatar wills is, by definition, good and correct."

and then:

"We are not claiming that men were created evil; we are claiming that "in the context of Tolkien's legendarium", i.e., taking into account all that happened in the history of Arda (and not only the original men, before Morgoth messed with them), men are evil."

Along the lines of the same argument, and taking the actual question into consideration, Eru is infallible, and all things are inherently good, for all things were created by Eru willingly, and so they are, by definition, all good and correct. This includes men, affirming that they are inherently good.

[Snaga]

I hate to do this but I am going to say this was a draw. Partly a function of the question, which pitched the two sides at either end of a scale, when the truth almost certainly lies in the middle. The Tolkienologists made more efforts to prove their side, but the Outcasts did a pretty fair job of knocking holes in them. On the other hand, they didnt prove to my satisfaction that Men were inherently good either.

Come to mention it, noone really convinced me that they could establish what it was to be 'inherently' good or evil, as opposed to a little, pure, inclined towards or capable of.... too much confusion in basic terminology on both sides for me to be able to name a victor.

I was leaning towards the Outcasts, if only because there seemed to be more honesty in their style of debating, and that nearly swayed me. Especially when Eriol dismissed an entire line of argument as 'emotional' - that deserves a mention as sinking to an all-time low. I must say that the nitpicking, twisting and pettifogging that went on in some of the posts was most tiresome and made sections of the debate quite a chore to read. This should have been an entertaining subject, but I have to be honest and say it wasnt. Sorry... I know the form is to congratulate the teams for their efforts. But in this case, I detected more heat than light.

A draw... alas.:(

[YayGollum]

Um, why are there two neutral judges?

[baragund]

Yay (and anyone else who might be curious),

When I lost the two original judges, I asked a whole bunch of people to fill in. It just happens that the first two who accepted were classified as neutral judges. If that's a problem, I'll go find someone in one of the other guilds.

[Aulë]

Baragund- in replace of one of the Neutral judges, should be you (representing the GoS)

[reem]

well, just in case i'm not to be replaced by another none-nutral judge here is my conclusion.

the question Baragund put was "In the context of Tolkiens legendarium, are men inherently Good or Evil?"

i checked the meaning of inherent from the dictionary: a quality that's inherent in something is a natural part of it and can't be separated from it.

the problem with this question is that Tolkien's Men are indeed both Good and Evil by nature.
Good in the sence that they were born good.
Evil in that they were indeed flawed by Eru's own design and
had a weakness for corruptibility. that means that since they tend to the bad more than the good it is in their nature to do evil, and thus it can be conluded that men are too inherently evil!

both teams did an excellent job. it's really difficult to decide which team to vote for. i changed my mind many times while reading the debate.
i think that in the end it's not who was right, because both teams were right, but rather who made more holes in the other's deffence as well as who presented a stronger case.
according to those standards i vote for GoT. they just barely exceeded the elequence of GoO, but they managed to unhinge many of the essential points GoO were making.
that's all from my part.
reem

[baragund]

Oh Drat!! I'm afraid I made a muddle of things.:(

I did not realize that one of my duties as host was also to judge, representing my own guild. Unfortunately, both reem and Cir went ahead and posted their judgements at my request as neutral judges. At this point, I could do one of two things:

1. Leave things as they are.
2. Substitute Scatha's or Chymaera's judgement (since they have not posted their judgements yet) with my own.

I don't think removing one of the neutral judges' posts would be a good idea. That would open up a can of worms because they already posted. At this point I am leaning toward asking Scatha to sit out because he has a dual membership in GoE and GoT.

Let me know what you guys think and we'll go from there.

[Eriol]

Seeing as the two neutral judges voted for different guilds, I think that the easiest way is to consider the "neutral vote" as a draw.

In other words, leave it that way.

I think that is the "path of least resistance", and I see nothing wrong with it.

[reem]

well if it solves anything u can just ignore what i said and take me out. it's really ok. i honestly dont mind:) Baragund, if u can't find any way around ur problem just take my place ok? ;)
reem

[Nóm]

It's all the same to me. Five judges is five judges.

[baragund]

OK, we'll leave things as they are. Scatha and Chymaera will post their judgements as originally planned.

Sorry for the muddle! Baragund gets twenty lashes with a wet noodle!

[Chymaera]

Well once again we have the two talented debating teams from the Guild of Tolkienology and the Guild of the Outcasts.
My congratulations to both teams on tackling a very hard subject.

Now the Guild of Tolkienology took the side claiming that; Men were inherently evil

Originally posted by Eriol
Do you think men have the ability for redemption? Is it something within their grasp, unaided? I don't agree with that. I think that men lack this ability -- and that is why I call them evil. And in my view, yes, an inherently evil race could have been created good -- indeed, must have been created good since Eru does not create evil -- but it could fall. And then, they would lose the ability for redemption.

...

I think the major result is the complete variance between Men's wishes and Eru's wishes after the fall. In other words, men became evil as a race. That is more serious, in my opinion, than the fear of death, which is only a consequence of that. Men fear death because it is Eru's will, and they are opposed to that will.

...

We never claimed that if men do evil they are inherently evil. We claimed that the race of men became inherently evil after the fall. We have the quotes of Eru and JRRT backing that. What made them evil was the huge blasphemy (which you called "pure evil") of Morgoth worship. Not individual evil acts.

Originally posted by Manveru
It’s the matter of choice (free will), Yay... If one decides to be totally evil (pure evil), then one is... s/he casts away all that is ‘good and right’... one simply rejects ‘good’ and smothers it in oneself replacing it with evil (hate, lust etc. etc.).

But they don’t wish to be ‘good’ anymore... ‘cause they’re “stained, marked” with evil. I know, I know... they try, but what comes out of that? Definitely not ‘good’. Even the Edainic people (the “best” of all the race) are still easily seduced by ‘evil’... There's nobody else to blame, but Men (not Sauron or other 'cunning' creature).
If one wants to grow something, one needs a “seed, basic thing” to succeed, to crop in the end. And that “seed” in Men is their “inner weakness” which I quoted in my first post and which was the reason of the First Fall of Men and their sequential ‘wrongdoings’... This “seed” is simply... inherent evil, which takes us to the point that Men (as a race) are inherently evil.




And the Guild of the Outcasts argued that; Men are inherently good.

Originally posted by Nóm
But remember I've also said (btw I well aware that Tolkien says men fell because of a weakness and this was consequent of the first fall - but I do not see what point you are trying to make with the quote?) that beings who fall into evil do so not because they were inherently evil (though they can become so one for one) but because of some flaws in their design (weakness allows for this), or at least apparant flaws.


Now, because you think that men remained evil ever after the fall into Morgothism, and were evil for the reason that they were a fallen race, would you also say that a man who repents of this will remain evil? It doesn't seem that you are. The fact that good men exist within this fallen race shows that a man of a fallen race is not evil only because he is of that race, which in turn shows that one can not say men are evil for reason that they are tainted, for this would mean Aragorn, for example, is evil and not good.

The marring of men did not make them into an evil race, but a race more inclined to evil. I admitted this stuff in the opening post and I explained that each new fea comes direct from Eru... according to Eru's own design which = good. They did fall as a race, but each new baby man comes into the world with a fea from Eru, a child of Eru. It is for this reason that a comparison of the race of men with Sauron can only go so far. We are not dealing with one beign who was created good and turned evil but an entire race of beings who throughout history are born good, though tainted and inclined to evil.. as GoO has already said.

Originally posted by YayGollum
Are humans in real life and humans in these crazy books different? If they are, why don't the humans in the bookses have a whole other name since they're not humans like us? oh well. I don't like to use quotes. I assume that people know what they're talking about when they don't use them. Unless I can prove them wrong. I've been talking about real life type humans the whole time. Since I thought they were the same thing. Am I wrong? Are real life type people inherently type evil? Sounds crazy to me. Inherently evil makes me think of nature and crazy things messing with people's brains that make them act certain ways. I hope that you people know what I'm talking about. Actions don't tell if someone is inherently anything. Their nature and their thoughts and things do. Even if more people have done more evil things that good things overall, that doesn't prove that they are inherently anything. I don't remember anything saying that at one time, every single human alive would only do evil type things, but even if that happened, so what? You don't know what they were thinking. You don't know how they felt or anything like that. The actions of one generation doesn't make the entire race achingly evil.

...

Here's some stuff that I have to say about these newer things ---> All of that craziness about that Eru guy's designs and how evil types aren't very popular with him doesn't make much sense. Or maybe I'm equating the Eru guy to this God that Christian types pay attention to and who works in mysterious ways. Maybe the Eru guy works in achingly straightforward ones. I wouldn't know, but I disagree. Giving everyone free will was his idea. He knew what would happen and he did it anyways. Does creating things that end up doing evil things make the Eru guy evil since he let it happen? No. He talked about the evil things only making things better in the end. Looks like everyone's inherently good to me.

...

My nice little proofs that humans are more good than evil ---> The conscience lets them know when they're doing something wrong. Even if they have fun with being evil, they still feel bad about it. Mel felt like corrupting them. If they were definitely a lot more evil, he wouldn't have had to do anything. Same thing with Sauron in Numenor. If they were obviously so achingly evil, why would they want to waste time by corrupting them? Eru made them. ---> "Hi, I'm Eru! I feel like making something that seventy-five percent evil!" *gasp!*

==================================================

Now the above quotes that I have brought up from the debate show that each side has a good understanding of the question; These are the quotes that I found to be noteworthy and in need of more discussion (at a future date;)). It all really comes down to their interpretations of what they know.

Because both teams have given strong arguements for their side. And neither side could prove to me that, Men were inherently good OR evil. I have to vote for the DRAW.

Although I am working on a theory that baragund himself is inherently evil.:D
Considering that he is the one who came up with this question.:D

[FoolOfATook]

Although I'm probably the last person who should get on anyone's back about taking their time to write a judgement, the sooner that Baragund and Scatha could go ahead and post theirs', the better.

I think that we would all like to go ahead and get this particular debate into the books.

[baragund]

I'll have mine posted this weekend. I understand Scatha's computer blew up so I had to go find another substitute. Captain will be filling in.

[Lhunithiliel]

Scatha is having serious problems with his computer that have kept him away fromthe forum for a couple of weeks already. So....

[baragund]

OK, I plowed through this brain-teaser of a debate and I think I have a bead on it... and my head really hurts now. First, a couple of observations:

Both sides at times seemed to lose track of the two important modifiers to the debate question. GoT confused "inherent" with "inheritable" while GoO allowed some of there arguments to go into more general terms than "in the context of Tolkien's legendarium". As a result, the debate got a little off of the beaten track at times.

The other thing I'd like to bring up is the tone of the debate got a bit negative at times. Eriol and Nom seemed to be more interested in undermining each other than in building their respective arguments. At least once, I was tempted to jump in and say 'Cool it!' but, to your credit, you both did just that on your own. Still, I urge you to keep in mind we are a gathering of friends whose primary interest is developing our understanding of JRRT's writings. This isn't the UN Security Council or your local House of Delegates.

That said, let's get to the heart of the matter. GoT argument that Men are inherently evil is based on three points:

1. Men, as a race, disobeyed Eru's wishes consistently throughout history.
2. This trait was present since Morgoth's initial corruption of them.
3. This trait was inheritable.

GoT did a scholarly job (Oooooo, couldn't resist giving the premier guild of this forum a plug:D ) of referencing various quotes from Tolkien's writings to support their three points.

GoO, on the other hand, gives a more general argument for the inherent goodness of Men in that all Men are born good and then some, or most, are corrupted (the 'nature vs nurture' argument). Also, that all Men have the potential for Redemption.

For me, the key point was GoO's arguments for Men's Redemption as posted in various forms by Nom and Yay. You see, "inherent" is defined as "existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality or attribute". GoO discusses this ability of Men to forsake the corruption of evil and return to good throughout the thread. If Men were inherently evil, redemption would not happen. Individual Men (like the Nazgul maybe) could be inherently evil but the race of Men is not.

GoT argued beyond the shadow of a doubt that Men are weak and susceptible to evil. They demonstrated that the entire race fell to evil through the worship of Morgoth during the Athrebeth, and that even the very flower of the race of Men, the Numenoreans, were susceptible to the corruption of evil. However, GoT did not show that evil was a permanent and inseparable element of the race of Men.

Therefore, I judge the winner of this debate to be the Guild of Outcasts.

[Aulë]

Originally posted by baragund
I'll have mine posted this weekend. I understand Scatha's computer blew up so I had to go find another substitute. Captain will be filling in.

I think that the replacement for Scatha has to be from the Guild of Elves/Dwarves, and has to not be on the debating lists of GoS, GoP, OiE, GoO or GoT.

[Bethelarien]

I'll be filling in for Scatha, as Baragund has asked me to, and I've just been reminded that I said yes. :o

This has got to be one of the hardest debates I have read--and I've read all the debates. So...to both teams, wow. I had such a hard time deciding, and even comprehending both sides of the argument.

But, I have to say, there was one quote that decided my vote, and kudos to Eriol. Here's the quote:
Commentary on Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HOME X

Melkor was not just a local Evil on Earth, nor a Guardian Angel on Earth who had gone wrong: he was the Spirit of Evil, arising even before the making of Eä. His attempt to dominate the structure of Eä, and of Arda in particular, and alter the designs of Eru (which governed all the operations of the faithful Valar), had introduced evil, or a tendency to aberration from the design, into all the physical matter of Arda. It was for this reason, no doubt, that he had been totally successful with Men, but only partially so with Elves (who remained as a people 'unfallen').

We see here Tolkien claiming that the Spirit of Evil had been totally successful with Men; and he even goes so far as to compare Men with Elves and claim that Elves, as a people, remained "unfallen". I think it is clear from that quote that Men, as a people, were fallen.
This was just amazing to me. I feel that it completely decides the question. Although GoO did a wonderful job the rest of the debate, this quote just jumped out at me.

My vote goes to Guild of Tolkienology.