Yay For Debate Topic Suggestions! Originality, Yes?

[YayGollum]

Greetings. Debate craziness again. Toss your achingly original as well as frighteningly thought-provoking topics here. Am merely attempting to speed things up. Here's a few. I should come up with better ones, though. --->

Varda is the most achingly as well as deceitfully malicious of the Valar types

Humans, the children of Mel, or Mel Redux, or whatever you want to call them should have (by the Valar types, if they wished for lots of the nice and happy to be tossed around) had way more attentions tossed at them since Mel turned out to be so disagreeable to what was considered to be goodness. Ick. :rolleyes: Was that a debate topic before? I suddenly feel as if that was discussed somewhere before. oh well.

Humans are exactly as driven by fate as elves. I see no crazy gift from Eru being shown.

Gollum is the main hero of that The Lord Of The Rings story :rolleyes:

[Ithrynluin]

This is an old topic suggestion that never got debated:

Which was more foolish: Gandalf taking as long as he did to learn that Bilbo's/Frodo's was the One Ring, or Sauron neglecting to consider that someone might try to destroy his Ring?

[YayGollum]

Hm. That was never done? I thought that it had been. Mayhaps there was just a regular discussion thing on that? oh well. Not that interesting of a topic, but could be fun just because it isn't too easy.

[Ingwë]

This is an old topic suggestion that never got debated:

Which was more foolish: Gandalf taking as long as he did to learn that Bilbo's/Frodo's was the One Ring, or Sauron neglecting to consider that someone might try to destroy his Ring?Good idea. I have a test today, 2 tests tomorrow and that's all till the end of the month :) I will participate if we start.

[Seregon]

Did anyone ever go with that last suggestion? It's really good.

I know this is really shallow, but I can't help but remember the numerous arguments I've had as to whether elves (Legolas in particular) were correctly portrayed in the movies, appearance-wise (hair/eye color, clothing, etc.).

[YayGollum]

How was that last suggestion any good? It was about the evil torturer Gandalf. oh well. No, that topic was never turned into an actual debate. Anyways, I also remember all of those topics about how much better our visions of book details were in our heads, but I don't remember jumping into very many. On the subject of debateses having to do with movies at all, I would muchly enjoy them. Don't see why there haven't been plenty before.

[Ithrynluin]

One idea for a debate centering around the movies could be something like "Which of the the three films stayed the most true to the books?", or "The FOTR/TTT/ROTK movie stayed more true to the books than the other two".

[Seregon]

I think Ithy's idea is really good, but we'd have to break it down more because I don't know about the other people here, but I'm kind of nitpicky, and I'd get down to who's interpretation of the book was correct, what he meant by different descriptions, what about the conflicts, etc...

If we could break that down into maybe a series of debates, that'd be great!

And this is kind of off-topic, but maybe for at least some of these, we could make teams (not big ones or else they would only participate in a few debates, but maybe, like, teams of two or three), and make banners for winners, maybe even have a really big competition?

[YayGollum]

Sure, the ithrynluin person's idea for a movie slash book debate would be okay, but I was mostly thinking about debates all about the movies. The sorts of debates that we would normaly have just for the bookses, just with only the movies to be considered.

As to the idea of smaller teams participating in a debate tournament ---> Sounds like all kinds of fun. But then, it looks like such an idea is already being attempted. Have you checked out that one thread in the Entmoot section about guildses? *checks around* There you go. ---> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=18930

[Seregon]

No, not guilds - more like two-person teams. Guilds are groups of people with similar interests all in an area that caters to said interests. I mean, like, say... if I made a team with you, Yay, we'd compete in the same tournaments, share ideas, evidence, etc., etc., and if we won, we'd both win, not be credited individually.

[YayGollum]

Uh, huh. Well, I don't see why there couldn't be a debate tournament with guilds versus guilds versus any random teams that pop up out of nowhere. Most would wish the teams to have the same number of people on them, but if one team was maller than another and wasn't afraid of debating against some massive throng, I would already be a part of that team. :rolleyes: I wouldn't know if the guild versus guild type of tournament would be possible if there was a random team versus random team tournament going on the same time, since activity looks a bit low, to myself, though. If there isn't enough interest in the guild versus guild stuff, though, random humans running about, making teams, then joining tournaments could work. It just sounds like it would be harder.

[Seregon]

I'm saying teams vs. teams, not involving guilds at all...

Sorry if I've been confusing.

I think it might be a little harder, but slightly less confusing, without ten people trying to make all of their ideas mesh with individual interpretations.

[Bethelarien]

I like teams of three. Not too many people, but it's better than 2. Fabulous.

[YayGollum]

No, no confusion. I'm merely writing that teams without the guilds might be harder to organize. Guilds are plenty fun for people already. The dudes in charge of the debates would merely pop into the guild to get the information he'd need from the participants. With just random teams forming and dissolving all of the time outside of guilds, it would be a lot harder to track information down. And I don't remember any debates with ten people on a team. It wouldn't be everyone on a guild verses everyone on some other guild. The guilds would be doing their guild thing, having fun with whatever interest keeps them together. When a debate comes along, they'd ask for volunteers to represent their guild. They were usually only four or five people per team. Anyways, even if we end up going with the guild versus guild idea, I don't see why random people forming teams wouldn't be allowed in, too. Maybe they just don't feel like joining a guild but still want to embarrass everyone in a tournament. :D

[elfgirl]

What about setting teams for every debate (like we do in academic debates)? One team debates everything from winged balrogs, to the strongest Valar, to the color of Legolas' hair. It tends to develop a sense of kinship between the members of the group, which otherwise might never be gained. The downside is that different people like different topics - it might be difficult to get everyone enthused about the same topics, and cause resentment when someone misses a debate they wanted.

Well? Love it? Hate it? Think it's ugly?

[Seregon]

Maybe we should move this discussion somewhere else, like... Suggestions for debate format , or maybe: Debate Format: A better way?

[YayGollum]

Here you go. ---> http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=18055 Toss that sort of thing in there. Even so, to answer the elfgirl person's question ---> Eh. I don't love, hate, or think of your idea as ugly. I think that it's unrealistic, since, as you pointed out, some people wouldn't be interested or confident at all with every topic, and plenty will inevitably drop out of their groups. Sure, some might enjoy a team that they can count on, but I doubt that such things could exist. The idea of guilds forming teams makes more sense, to myself, since the teams wouldn't have to be the same for every debate, but the large group would still have the sense of kinship that you're looking for.

[Ichigo]

i like it... its a good idea, but getting the proof could prove interesting seeing as how the differently covered books provide a different number of pages. it may cause a bit of a debate within its self

[Ithrynluin]

How about this one:

Elves and Dwarves: Who was more to blame for the enmity between the two races?

This is off the top of my head, so I'm not sure how much material there is to go on. Still, it looks like it could make for a lively debate!

[Turgon]

That's actually quite a cool idea Ithryn, it would be a very open debate if nothing else. More a case of people debating two different perspectives, rather than digging for quotes and such. It would definitely come down to who puts forth the best arguement I think. As for the movie debate, the answer is the FoTR surely?

:D

[Ithrynluin]

That's actually quite a cool idea Ithryn, it would be a very open debate if nothing else. More a case of people debating two different perspectives, rather than digging for quotes and such. It would definitely come down to who puts forth the best arguement I think.

Thanks, and I agree with your guess about the direction of the debate.

As for the movie debate, the answer is the FoTR surely?

I think most of us would agree that the FOTR movie stayed the most true to the books, so I guess the debate should be between TTT and ROTK? The debate would require that both films deviate from the book roughly the same number of times, but as I'm no movie buff, I don't feel competent enough to judge whether they actually do.

Also, I think it was YayGollum who mentioned a debate that would revolve solely around the movies, but I'm not quite sure how he envisioned this; that is, I fear it might boil down to a clash of opinions, but maybe not?

[YayGollum]

I was mostly suggesting some sort of debate that would focus on something only to be found in the movies, just to give people who don't have all of those geeky books a chance to jump into a debate. But then, it's usually the geekier sorts that enjoy the debates. :rolleyes: oh well.

As for the Dwarves versus sickeningly popular elfs, I choose the Dwarf side! :D

[chrysophalax]

This sounds like a great topic. Seems like the sources just need to be agreed upon.

[Thorondor_]

I too would enjoy a debate about dwarves vs. elves; btw, I would side with the elves :D. The accepted source would most likely be the Silmarillion.

[Turgon]

Regarding the sources, I can't see it being too much of an issue in this debate, but I think The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion and maybe Unfinished Tales should be included, as I think these are books that most people are likely to possess.

Um... should this be in the other thread now?

:o

[Ithrynluin]

A couple other ideas, or germs of ideas:

1.

Legolas probably achieved least of the Nine Walkers. -- Unfinished Tales

Discuss the validity of this statement. Of course, the "argument" Tolkien said so, so it must be true does not apply. :)

2.

Who was more deserving for the destruction of the One Ring, Sam or Frodo?

3.

Which was the greater dead: Fingolfin battling Morgoth or Fingon rescuing Maedhros?

4.

Would Middle-earth have been better off in the long run had the smiths of Eregion never conceived of making the Rings of Power? OR Was the making of the One Ring a foolish move on Sauron's part? OR something to that effect. ;) The first one sort of encompasses the second one (Sauron) but also questions the elves' motives, so it might be both more interesting and challenging.

[YayGollum]

For Number One, I am not so interested. My stance would have to be that, even though the topic doesn't ask for this, he was easily the best of the fellowship, only because it wouldn't be a popular stance. I'd judge this one.

For Number Two, I would say Gollum, then offer to be a judge. :rolleyes:

For Number Three, I would go with Fingon rescuing Maedhros, easily. Mostly because everyone enjoys making such a large deal about that other deed. This would be fun. I've got some good ideas.

For both versions of Number Four, my opinion would be no for both, but I could debate for either side. The first looks like it would be more fun, though, since you could work with more information.

[Ithrynluin]

And another one:

The Fellowship would have been better off had they gone the way of the High Pass rather than going south.

Oh, and anyone else is also welcome to contribute, by the way...;)

[Snaga]

How about: Did Denethor do more harm than good in the battle against Sauron?

[YayGollum]

Denethor, just another version of poor Smeagol. I'd jump in on that. The side defending the guy would probably be less popular, too.

As for the ithrynluin person's last contribution, eh, doesn't sound like my sort of thing. Sure, I could come up with all kinds of hypothetical plot twists that the Tolkien person could have come up with, if he had decided to take them that way, but I figure that they wouldn't help my side much. I'd judge it, of course. Why not? It's been a while.

[Turgon]

I like the Denethor idea too, though I think I would be more inclined to defend him. I actually liked the portrayal of him in the book. I found him to be quite sympathetic. Not so much in the film, although I did like the actor who played him. The scene where Faramir and Company ride out whilst Pippin sings is probably the highlight of RoTK for me.

[YayGollum]

Towards the Maedhros person's superly cool flip-flop debate idea, I would write that it would make the ithrynluin person's Number One idea fun enough for me to mayhaps join, but only if it required more players.

Thinking about things for the ithrynluin person's Number Two idea, I actually would enjoy pointing out to all that, of the two specified characters, the superly boring Frodo was more deserving for the destruction of the One Ring thing. The evil sam should never even be mentioned. Evil character. Should be forgotten. At the end of every post, though, I'd probably add that poor Smeagol was the most responsible. If that turned into a flip-flop sort of debate, though, I wouldn't even be able to judge it, since I might have to honestly go with the people arguing for the evil sam, merely based on their skills, which would be pretty sickening, for myself.

I'd still join in on the ithynluin person's last two ideas if they got turned into the flip-flop sorts of debates. I am not a large enough fan or detractor of any of those subjects to worry about changing views.

Towards the Denethor idea, I'd probably rather judge than join in on that, if I had to suddenly change views. *sniff* Poor Smeagol.