Instigator / Pro
34
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#168

[NO KRITIK] Hogwarts should have had six houses based on the four foubders and what they represented.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
9
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
4
5
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
24
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

You must represent the four-house system.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments and conduct go to Pro for they provided consistent quality arguments while Con forfeited all rounds but one.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct for forefeits.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro has a very obvious typo in the title. Con forfeited too soon.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Why did Con give up. I have to say the constant people might fit into two house is not really an argument for why there should be six. But since there isn't any rebuttals I can't give it to con.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Neither pro or con went beyond the book much to find sources, but since this is a literary debate on Harry Potter, its perfectly understandable. Since Pro had one other source, Pro can make a really good argument for winning siurces, but its also the case that "most reliable sources" doesn't translate to the same quantity. Using New Criticism itself doesn't make a source unreliable, so I'll tie this one.

The forfeits really cursed Con to lose arguments. There is too much unrefuted by Pro, which really swings my vote here. Pro was also able to refute con unopposed. By volume, and frankly a lack of effort by Con, Pro wins arguments. The full forfeit also costs Con conduct.