Resolved: Frodo was not justified in taking the Fellowship into Moria.

DA1.a: I did show that Gandalf suffered unnecessarily as I showed there were actually alternatives and they did not have to go through Moria. This argument is therefore not yet won by Con. 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.