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

Observations conceded as clarified. Responses to Pro's DAs: DA1.a Gandalf suffered unnecessarily. Response - not shown. Pro said he would show that Gandalf suffered unnecessarily later on, but did not do so. This argument was essentially dropped and not contested by Pro and is won by Con. DA1.b Con has brought forth no evidence showing that Gandalf wouldn't have become the White Wizard without the encounter with the Balrog. Response - Pro burden of proof. Con has shown that Gandalf became the White Wizard because he went through Moria. It's Pro's turn to contest that argument, and Pro has not done so with adequate evidence. DA2.a Aragorn did not prove to be a fully capable leader, although he was a good one. Responses: looking into the Palantir was a calculated decision, meant to draw Sauron's Eye from Frodo and the Ring. The Nazgul would have eventually found the Ring anyway. He did manage to fend them off though. DA2.b The Fellowship did lose time. Not true. The instances that Pro mentioned resulted in only a negligible loss of time, perhaps added together 10 hours or so. Moria was actually a shortcut - going through Isengard or the Misty Mountains would have taken much longer. DA3. If Gandalf had made only one mistake, the Fellowship would have either been lost or massacred. Response - Bilbo's path no better. The caves of the Misty Mountains were, if possible, even more tortuous and labyrinthine than the Mines of Moria. The Hobbit demonstrates this - just look at how easily Bilbo got lost. DA3.a. First, I'd like to point out that Pro did not provide any evidence to support his arguments about Gandalf. Con wins the Gandalf/White Wizard arguments. Pro also said that the death of Boromir was not shown to be beneficial, especially as he repented in the end. Response - not true. Boromir already had the desire for the Ring burned into him - he wouldn't have just let go like that. He repented only for the moment because he saw for an instant what he was becoming. Pro then argued that If Boromir had lived, he might have proven a valuable defendant at Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, and the Battle before the Black Gate. Response - irrelevant if Boromir took the RIng and became a wraith. Pro then argued that Con showed no evidence that Boromir would have become a wraith. Response - men more susceptible. It was widely acknowledged throughout the book that hobbits were much more resistant to the draw of the Ring and other evil forces than Men. I can present applications of this if Pro would like. DA3.b.1. Pro argued that the Con has brought forth no evidence that Eru even existed or that Frodo recognized the presence of a 'higher force'. Response - ignoring proof. I presented evidence in my last speech that Pro simply ignored and did not contest. Let me further elaborate on that evidence. Frodo recognized that there was a higher power moving things along throughout the book. I said this in Round 1, and Pro did not contest or question the fact that the book mentions several times a higher power. For example, Gandalf said "Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker" early on in the Fellowship of the Ring. DA3.b.2 Pro argued that if Eru did have supreme power, if the Fellowship had walked into Mordor sounding trumpets, shooting off rockets, and ultimately attracting the Eye of Sauron, then couldn't Eru have protected them all? Response - stupidity. It seems that Eru held to the idea that "God helps those who help themselves." If the Fellowship had been that stupid, Eru would probably not have intervened. Eru did not intervene when Denethor attempted to kill his own son and committed suicide, etc. Moving on to the DA's I brought against the Pro plan. DA1: Pro said that Con has no proof. Response - not true. I did present proof that the goblins multiplied again. Pro then said that the goblins were completely wiped out in the Battle of the Five Armies and the events following. Response: Sauron's power - Sauron was busy breeding orcs and goblins. The existence of orcs in the Misty Mountains is proven by the fact that they attacked Lorien and King Thranduil's realm during the events of LOTR. DA2: Pro simply dismissed this DA without responding to it. This argument is also won by Con. DA3: Pro then simply dismissed this DA as well by saying that the Con was contradicting himself. Response - I was pointing out two scenarios - either the caves were empty, and DA2 would have happened, or the caves were crawling with orcs, and DA3 would have happened. Either way, Pro loses. I actually pointed this out at the end of the last Con round, and this was also uncontested by the Pro. Either way, Pro loses DAs 2 and 3, and Pro's plan cannot be voted for because of those two uncontested DA's, so therefore the only way to go is Con. Finally, I'd like to point out that throughout Pro's arguments this round, he has consistently been ignoring or simply dismissing evidence and arguments brought forward by the Con in the last round.